Did America "win the war" for the allies in WW2?

[Very_Boring_Name]

Poll question: Did America "win the war" for the allies in WW2?

[ZombieHorde]

1. I voted "Other" because I have no idea, but I felt like voting anyway. nt

[Very_Boring_Name]

3. My own view is that America greatly shortened the length of the war, but ultimately

the war could have been won without it. America entered the war quite late, and by that time Hitler was already fighting the war on two fronts, and Germany was quickly running out of resources (many of the german losses during the battle of britain were literally due to their planes running out of fuel). This, combined with losses on the eastern front, there's no way Hitler would have prevailed.

[mrmpa]

5. You have to take into account that the Soviet Union was largely

armed via Lend-Lease program, as was Britain. It just wasn't US troops fighting, but the material the US lended-leases to its Allies that aided the Allies winning the war.

[qazplm]

12. not really

if we don't enter, it isn't like Britain was going to be able to do DDay by themselves and as others point out lend-lease was an absolute lifeline that kept Britain alive to fight in the first place.

[rampart]

2. i voted other

it is unlikely that the allies could have won without weapons and su[[;oes from the "arsenal of democracy," but, the red army kept a few panzer divisions occupied that might have turned the tide at omaha beach.

[qazplm]

13. I think it just suggests

that you can have more than one crucial element. America was crucial to success, so was the Soviet Union, so was Britain.

[rampart]

32. that is what allies are for

[Ishoutandscream2]

4. The Soviet Union made the greatest contribution to ending the war

Sure, we supplied material to them to fight the Nazis. And we fought them from the west. But we didn't open a front until June 44, and the Soviets had been fighting the Nazis on their soil for three years.

[Populist_Prole]

7. Before June '44 we fought Nazis in N. Africa & Italy.

The US onslaught of the air power over Europe also consumed huge amounts of German resources to fight it; resources that would have been used on the eastern front against the USSR.

[Ishoutandscream2]

8. True, but Stalin and the Soviets pushed for a western front

He felt that troops in North Africa and Italy wasn't as effective as a real, western front. He continued pressing FDR on this issue for what he thought was a very long time.

In terms of troops, civilians, and the land itself - no country put up with more than the Soviets. If Hitler hadn't invaded the USSR, no telling how it would have all turned out.

[justabob]

15. that is one the great what if's of history nt

[Ex Lurker]

21. if Hitler hadn't invaded the USSR, he wouldn't have been Hitler

Eastward expansion was intrinsic to Nazi ideology. As for a second front, the Western Allies weren't ready to invade continental Europe before 1944. It took that long to train America's massive citizen army, develop and build the necessary equipment, and incorporate the lessons learned from waging amphibious warfare in the Mediterranean and Pacific. If we had tried a cross channel invasion before mid-1944, it would almost certainly have failed. That might have been ok with Stalin; it would have tied down considerable German forces in the West without allowing the British and Americans to liberate Europe before the Russians got there.

[Confusious]

25. we invaded Italy 1943

Africa 1942

[Diclotican]

37. Confusious

Confusious

It took a shange of guards in the high command, and a lot of equipment to learn US how to wage a modern war in Afrika i 1942.. Before that, the US soldiers was bad equipt, and also had a high command who was not able to wage a war on modern terms.. The british was far better to fight a modern war than the US.. But in the end, Montgomery and their US allies learned how to wage a war against Rommel.. And then they really beat the beast down...

US, and UK, and a lot of other nations invaded Italy in 1943, thats correct.. But it was taking a lot of time to get Italy free from german ocupation forces.. it was not untill the winter/late spring of 1944 that most of Italy was liberated.. And not even then, when most of Italy was liberated, the germans was standing idle to let the allied forces prevail.. US, UK, and the other nations, had to figh nail and tail to get Italy from Germany...

Diclotican

[Confusious]

38. I think some of your points could be argued

For example, Rome fell to the allies June 4, 1944. we would still be fighting in Italy up to the surrender of Germany.

I've studied ww2 since I was 10 years old. 30 years.

people seem to forget that we were fighting in Europe before d-day 1944. that was my point.

[Diclotican]

68. Confusious

Confusious

That is absolutely true, that US have been fighing in Europe long before D day in 1944.. And you, with your allies all of the place was fighting the germans all way up to 8 of may 1945 when germany officially surrended to the allied forces. And the US forces in both Italy and in France and the rest of west Europe untill german surrended was fighing hard, brutal, and often with odds agains it many times over.. Many thousands of good american soldies was also killed by Waffen SS, who was more than just keen to kill allied forces regardness of war rules what so ever. Even regular german soldiers was using metodes with POW's who was not acceptable then, and are still not acceptable to this days..

US have been a good friend, and a good allied to this days.. The alliance between US and most of Europe survived even the 8 year with the nightmare George Walker Bush jr... And it is still a few in Europe who rembember when US soldiers was liberating POWs or KZ camps in France, The Netherlands, and in Germany itself.. And many millions rembember when US was with the rest of your friends when you was needed in the endgame of the world war two, and in the 40 year with cold war...

But, it is still a vallid case, that US soldiers had to learn it the hard way, what a modern war was.. And it took its time, for the american soldiers, and not to say commanders to learn, that you can't use the tools of World War One, on a modern battle ground.. It took its time, but US learned it, and learned it well. And thanks to all who died and was maimed, or damamaged for one reason or another under World War Two, the good survived and the evils was burried.. And US was verry instrumental in been the place where the good forces could get weapons, food, and all what a modern war are in need of...

A one time, made in USA really meant someting in Europe...

Diclotican

[Ex Lurker]

49. But Italy was never going to be the route to Germany

That had to go through France. Everyone knew it, probably even Churchill, his remarks to the contrary notwithstanding. North Africa and Italy were mostly about knocking Italy out of the war and removing the threat to the Suez Canal and Egypt. Legitimate goals, but not a springboard into Germany.

[qazplm]

54. and yet

both courses of action tied up German troops, removed the ability of Italy to take up key sectors (like NA, like Greece, like the Balkans, and forced Germany to fight the Russians off with less than half their army.

[Ex Lurker]

91. In my view, the most important thing those campaigns achieved

was to get the troops and commanders some live fire experience. Eliminate the dead wood among the top brass, identify which generals knew how to lead, figure out which tactics worked and which didn't. Things that can only be done in combat. By the time Normandy rolled around, the Americans were ready. They weren't in '42 and '43.

[crickets]

9. In terms of manpower expended, literally-

without question, the Soviet Union made the greatest contribution to ending the war.

[Ishoutandscream2]

10. Yep, original point I was trying to make (and not very well)

I do think it saved Great Britain as well.

[qazplm]

11. nevertheless that second front was crucial

Germany with only one front has enough troops to hold their own against the Soviets.

They could have regrouped and come up with a better plan the following spring when the weather got better.

The opening of a second front stopped all of that, and it still took a year to finally beat them. Conversely, without the Soviets, it's probably just as impossible or extremely difficult for us and Britain to beat them with just one front.

We were crucial, as were the Soviets, as was the stupidity of the Japanese in attacking us, as was the stupidity of Hitler for attacking the SU before they'd finished off Britain.

I don't know that the allies win without us though, just like I don't know if we win without the Soviets on the other side.

[Paradoxical]

26. The Soviets fought back and forth with the Nazis for years.

Each side managed to push the other back and then the other would gain strength. But it was the Soviets who so thoroughly destroyed the Germans that they pushed all the way to the North Sea.

In the end, the Germans simply could not hold back such a force.

[qazplm]

53. they couldn't hold back such a force because

half their army was on the western front to prepare for DDay.

[DanTex]

62. Not really

Not sure what you mean by "half" of the German army. But the Eastern/Western fronts were not a 50/50 thing by any means. More like 80/20. The East is where Germany lost.

Also, for most of the war, there wasn't much of a Western front at all. The turning point in the East was Stalingrad, which was early 1943. D-Day wasn't until June 1944.

While the real fighting was going on in the East, the Soviets repeatedly asked the US and UK to open a second front, to share the warfighting burden. But that didn't happen. Instead the US and UK invaded North Africa and then Italy (which all parties involved understood were relatively minor campaigns). By the time D-Day came around, Germany had been fatally weakened by the Soviets.

Yes, the US made a great contribution. But intensity and decisiveness of the fighting on the Eastern front were far greater.

[The Magistrate]

66. Very True, Sir: Everyone Here Knows 'Overlord', But Who Knows 'Bagration'?

Hitler was defeated in the east, by the Soviet Union.

[Lionel Mandrake]

88. North Africa was the see-saw.

First the Brits would gain ground, then Rommel's Afrikacorps, then the Brits, etc.

The Eastern Front was different. There the Germans seemed invincible during the Summer and Fall of 1941, but the Winter slowed them down. The Soviet defense grew stronger as the German offensive faltered. The Soviets started retaking territory and kept going all the way to Berlin, albeit with terrible losses.

The eastern see-saw, if you can call it that, rocked back and forth only once.

[Volaris]

45. I won't disagree with your assessment of history, but I would like to ask a question...

Do you think that the Soviets would have been able to advance out of "Mother Russia" if American Forces had not opened a Western Front? I'm not being facetious, I want to know if you think they could have done it...



nevermind, my question got answered by the time i finished typing the question hahaha


Thanks=)

[BlueMTexpat]

99. I tend to believe that there are many factors at work, but the USSR's contribution

should never be discounted. I've recently been reading about the siege of Leningrad. It began in September 1941 and was not lifted until Jan 1944. The first winter was the worst. Millions died. Here's the Wiki overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Leningrad

There is literally no comparison to anything like it that the US has ever suffered. Ever.

[Brother Buzz]

6. It over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

44. Was it?

[thelordofhell]

51. Leave him alone, he's rolling

[taterguy]

60. Pearl Harbor was attacked with torpedo planes, not bombers dumbass

You should read a history book or two before spewing your ignorant bullshit.

[Brother Buzz]

63. Talk about dumbass

I have it on good authority that GWB declared war on Mexico after the Germans dive-bombed and torpedoed Pearl Harbor.

[Warren DeMontague]

73. See if you can guess what I am now.

[taterguy]

75. A zit?

[dionysus]

77. "Animal House" movie quote understand FAIL...

:rofl:

[taterguy]

78. taterguy post understand FAIL

:patriot:

[dionysus]

80. i never understood that line on DU either until i finally saw Animal House...

;)

[justabob]

14. militarily, yes. I believe they did

The Russians would have gotten it done eventually, but not without even more suffering for civilians et al.

Ideologically, I am not so sure. Our army beat their army, but fascism is still alive and well, while American democracy is unrecognizable, if not dead completely. :shrug:

edit: removed duplicate word

[tkmorris]

16. It's an intriguing question

It's been discussed to death of course in the decades since but perhaps 70 years worth of distance from it lends a bit more perspective.

Most arguments seem to focus upon events in Europe, and there is no doubt that it would have played out differently without the American presence. How differently is anyone's guess, but different it would have been. Here's what occurs to me however. The US not entering WWII implies that Pearl Harbor never happens. If the Japanese do not attack Pearl Harbor, what DO they do? They needed oil badly, there is no question of that or that it had a lot to do with why they attacked the US in the first place. So, not attacking PH means they employ an alternative plan but what that would be is beyond me. If they had attacked the USSR it would have created a real problem for the Russians because they would have to defend on another front, far from their western front where they were already suffering massive losses. However the Japanese had no real incentive to do so because in the short term there was little to gain. There is oil in Siberia but that was not known then, and if it had been the Japanese would have been hard pressed to transport it out. Germany had more than enough trouble dealing with the Russian winter, can you imagine the Japanese invading through Siberia? Apparently they could, and decided (rightly so) that it was a terrible idea.

Further, you have to ask whether the US staying out of war means there was no lend-lease program. Assuming there was, I would bet that Germany and the USSR would have eventually signed a peace agreement. The attack on the USSR was proving far too costly for the Germans to maintain, and the USSR was taking losses that dwarf other nations. With the US not in the war, and the USSR out of the equation, I think Germany would have been able to take Britain. Beyond that I am not sure. Germany would have done well at that point to consolidate it's gains and solidify it's position but Hitler always did seem hellbent on overextending his forces.

In the end though I believe it's all moot. The United States was going to get involved in the end. I think that Pearl Harbor pushed up the date of our entry a bit, but in the end it was inevitable. for that matter the Japanese attack on the US was pretty inevitable as well. What else could they do? They had to have oil, and that meant driving the US out of the Philippines. To imagine a scenario where the US doesn't get in the war means changing so many factors that led up to it that it really isn't possible to analyze how events would have played out.

[Sherman A1]

22. Agreed

We may have come in through a different means or at a different time, but I cannot myself think of the US staying out of this war. Even before Pearl Harbor we were in the midst of the Battle of the Atlantic.

I don't think that we won the war for the Allies, but we certainly contributed greatly to that end through both men and material.

[fishwax]

17. remove any of the "Big Three" and Hitler might have won

:shrug:

[houstonintc]

18. US Industrial power won the war.

The United States had just a ton of raw resources and under FDR during wartime nearly universal employment.

The country was able to kick out so much military hardware and weapons that the Germans just couldn't compete. Essentially a lose of an american aircraft or ship was not as big a deal as it was for the Germans who had limited resources and a limited industrial base.

The Russians might not have been able to push into Germany without the Americans attacking from the South and the West. Though definitely I'd say it was a 55-45 for American Industrial might and Russian Resiliency (Plus their bitter winters).

[Paradoxical]

24. The Third Reich was one of the great industrial powers of the 20th century.

And they could easily compete with Americans.

The difference is that the Germans stretched their resources too thin when they decided to fight fronts in the East, West and in Africa.

The Soviets simply overpowered them. But the Germans were highly developed in technology.

[Democracyinkind]

34. I don't believe that the German industrial potential could compete with the Americans.

Look at the peak production numbers. The German wartime economy was nowhere near that of the Americans; neither in terms of machinery nor in terms of raw materials.

Yes, Germany was formidable. But it was a rural, mid-sized machine shop economy that had nothing on what the Americans would develop during the war. This has been acknowledged by most contemporary studies on the war economies. See Tooze, 2006, for example. Germany was not a modern economy in the sense that the US was. Germany was still very much in transition. Which is to say nothing about the raw material situation, which wasn't in favor of the Germans either (and probably was even more decisive than the machine-situation.)

[WatsonT]

41. They didn't fully mobilize until late in the war

oddly enough. They were worried about morale on the homefront.

Also they had some unusual projects that were eating up resources and had nothing to do with the war (trains were used for moving jews to death camps rather than industrial goods, even as troops were advancing on their borders).

And german industry/war time production tended to focus on high quality but very complicated equipment that could not be mass produced.

They made some fine tanks. But if tank design A is 5 times as good as tank design B but tank B is simple and you could produce 10 times as many then it is superior to tank A.

We went with B. They went with A and kept tinkering with it rather than working on a simplified, effective, and easily mass produced design.

[qazplm]

56. yes and the reality was

Tank A was only about 1.5 times as good as Tank B.

[WatsonT]

70. It's tough to gauge for our tanks

since we used them much differently and air-power was used far more extensively by us as an anti-tank weapon than by the germans.

[PavePusher]

85. And required more maintenance, parts and fuel.

According to the histories, German tanks were a stone bitch to keep running on the battlefield.

[Lionel Mandrake]

90. How's this for an unusual project eating up resources.

"The V-2 program was the single most expensive development project of the Third Reich: 6,048 were built, at a cost of approximately 100,000 Reichsmarks each; 3,225 were launched. ... The V-2 consumed a third of Germany's fuel alcohol production and major portions of other critical technologies; to distill the fuel alcohol for one V-2 launch required 30 tons of potatoes at a time when food was becoming scarce."

read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_rocket#Assessment

While the V-2 did have something to do with the war, it was mainly an instrument of propaganda. We can imagine how differently the war would have played out if the Germans had developed, say, a heavy bomber instead of the V-2.

[Democracyinkind]

98. Recent scholarship tends to disagree

with almost every point you just made. In fact, Tooze has a chapter about common myths of the nazi economy in his book that reads exactly like what you just written.

The German economy had nothing on the US Economy; and the Nazis knew.

[melm00se]

74. what the USA brought to the table

was an industrial base that was beyond the reach of German bombers and a self sufficiency that none of the other players enjoyed (save the Soviets but they had pretty much screwed up their economy by killing untold millions).

WWII, had the USA not joined, would have devolved into a stalemate with GB, while not immediately invaded, drastically marginalized as 66% of Great Britain’s food, 95% of her petroleum needs, as well as similar percentages of copper, aluminum and other necessary war commodities were imported (Gannon, Robert. Hellions of the Deep: The Development of American Torpedoes in World War II. (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996) p.7). With GB as a non-threat, the Germans could have thrown the vast majority of their military might at the USSR. this would have, more than likely ground down both sides until a peace was brokered or the Third Reich developed nuclear weapons which would have turned the tide.

Without GB acting as a base and as a rallying point, an invasion of northern Europe would have been nearly impossible no matter how much material the USA could have been brought to bear (its one thing to shuttle troops and material across the English Channel, its quite another to bring a D-Day armada across the Atlantic).

the real tipping point was the attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor. Had the Japanese struck just in the Far East and no further than the Philippines, the USA would not have entered the war (too much isolationism).

[WatsonT]

40. That is empirically false

They could not outproduce the US alone.

And they had to contend with the USSR and Britain as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

[qazplm]

55. not when their infrastructure

was being constantly bombed while ours wasn't.

[Cali_Democrat]

59. The third reich could not easily compete with US industrial production. That is laughable.

See post above.

[TheFarseer]

19. very interesting question

What had the USA really done by early 1943 when the Soviets had won at Stalingrad and had the Nazis on the run? I don't think we were able to help very much by that time. From Stalingrad though, the Soviets pretty much had the situation under control. No doubt we were much more helpful to the British. Days after El Alamein, Operation Torch hit Morocco and Algeria, pretty much sealing Germany's fate in Africa although they still put up stiff resistance. If the USA had not helped out, one can imagine that Rommel and the British would have surged back and forth across Northern Africa as they had been doing. Eventually, the fact that they were getting their asses kicked on the Eastern Front would have ended this for Germany. It is possible the UK could have done the Normandy Invasion but not until much later in the war. More of Europe would have been part of the Warsaw Pact but the result would have been the same for Hitler. Now that I think about it, I think the USSR and UK could have done without us.

I think we were pretty much indispensable in beating Japan though!

[era veteran]

20. Liberty ships and Detroit won the war.

[Paradoxical]

23. You can thank the Allied victory on the USSR.

Who fought an entire front and lost more men than nearly all the others combined.

[Starry Messenger]

61. +1

[Cali_Democrat]

67. What about the dead American military personnel buried in Western Europe?

Should they be thanked for their sacrifice?

[PavePusher]

84. Don't forget that we gave them considerable material assistance. n/t

[KharmaTrain]

27. 6 Of One Half A Dozen Of Another...

First part...Yes, America's entry into the war turned the tide on the Germans and then the Japanese based on this country's abundance of resources and the "arsenal of Democracy". Providing Britain with lend-lease in '40 & '41 kept that country from starving and replace arms that they had lost at Dunkirk and then in the Blitz. When the USSR was attacked, again, American materials were critical in that country's build-up that turned the tide of the war in the East.

That said, Hitler and his humongous ego did more to doom Germany than the US entry in the war. He refused to listen to his military men and his boneheaded moves cost his nation millions of trained soldiers. He squandered resources that would be critical and made the ultimate mistake of trying to fight a two front war. The U.S. entry, just like in WWI, added millions of new "grunts" that would outlast and then overwhelm a German army that became a toy of a megolmaniac. IMO, had the US stayed neutral the Nazis would have been defeated but it would have taken a several more years and millions of civilian and military casualties.

[Bucky]

28. If our Founding Fathers hadn't stood up for liberty, we'd all be speaking Iroquois today

Does that help?

[BOG PERSON]

93. lol

[FLPanhandle]

29. The USSR did the heavy lifting against Germany; the USA did most of the work against Japan

The US could (and pretty much did) defeat Japan on it's own.

However, the USSR would not have made Germany surrender without the US involvement. Also, he US could not have defeated Germany without the Eastern Front. Hitler's biggest blunder was invading Russia

[Paradoxical]

30. You're completely forgetting about the 4 million Chinese who died in combat.

It was not just the Americans fighting in the Pacific. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

The Germans fought the USSR for years and both pushed back and forth. But, in the end, the Soviets pushed all the way through Europe to the Northern Sea.

[FLPanhandle]

35. China wasn't going to defeat Japan though.

Japan after 5 years of war with China was still strong enough to take on the US. Not discounting the Chinese death toll in the war, but Japan wasn't truly threatened militarily by China's army (which is why the Chinese death toll was so high). It was the US who destroyed Japan's resource supply lines and industrial capability, no one else was able to do that.

Yes, the Germans and USSR went back and forth for years, but if Hitler could have freed up his Channel defense forces to use against the USSR, it would have at least stalemated that front.

[Enthusiast]

36. Good point about the Chinese.

And there was also resistance in Korean and French Indochina.

[Lionel Mandrake]

94. Hitler made many blunders.

But you're right: his worst blunder was the 1941 invasion of the USSR.

Another notable blunder was declaring war on the USA. It was probably inevitable that we would go to war in Europe, but Hitler made it happen sooner rather than later. He believed he had nothing to fear from a nation like the USA that was a mixture of many races.

By the same token, Hitler believed that getting rid of Jews, Gypsies, and other minorities would make Germany stronger. That is why so many trains were used to transport prisoners to the death camps when those trains were needed for military purposes.

Another blunder was refusing to let the defeated Germans retreat from Stalingrad.

The list goes on and on.

[Kip Humphrey]

31. We won the battles of WWII against fascism but I think we are losing that war today.

[Democracyinkind]

33. Depends on which theatre.

Neither the Japanese nor the Germans had the economic means to undertake what they wanted to achieve. The Germans had lost the war by the Winter of 1941 and had no chance to turn anything around; Western Front or not; that's reflected in the writings of the Oberkommando as well in the most recent scholarship on the economic history of the second world war. (Tooze, Gerlach).

The same is true for the Pacific theatre - although there one might legitimatly ask who would have rolled up the front there if it weren't for the Americans... By the time the colonial powers would have started a pacific offensive the Japs might have well been defeated by the insurgents. But this is all hindsight. The salient point being that neither Germany nor Japan had any chance to win the war they started as long as their very first attacks did not prove decisive ( Neither "Typhoon" nor Pearl Harbor were decisive in the Clausewitzean sense of the word)....

I can't recommend the standard works enough ( Tooze, 2006 / Gerlach, 1998) (Lebra 1978 / Herde, 2002).

There's a strong argument to be made that the revisionist powers had lost the war before they started it. The decisive question would be that absent an american commitment to the war - what would the Americans have done? Sold arms to all belligerents? While American intervention in the war didn't really change the general outlines of the war (it did speed it up quite a bit, as has been said) the one fact that tilted the strategic balance was the question of who could profit and use american industrial power in their war effort. I'd say the allies knew by 1938 that they could count on being backed by that enormous potential while the belligerent powers realized that American Industrial power was the one true obstacle to winning the war. In that sense, the outcome of the war was structurally predetermined even before it actually began. Which is not to say that the absence of american intervention would not have so structurally influenced the course of war that it would have looked totally different from what we imagined to have taken place then.

[WatsonT]

39. Without our support

Russia and Britain would likely not have been able to continue fighting.

And then of course our direct support was crucial.

Then again if you'd taken any of the major allies out of the equation things would have been radically different.

[kickysnana]

42. I figure Russia could have stopped him but I voted US so I can be a phoney patriot on

this irrelevant poll on this most patriotic day. Oh and I won't have wanted Russia liberating all of Europe either.

:evilgrin:

[GKirk]

43. I think What If scenarios

are fun to play.

My thoughts are if the US didn't help out with material, money and manpower that the Nazi's
would have invaded England or that England would have sued for peace. If an invasion
happened I don't think it would have been long before Great Britain surrendered.

If either of those events happened the Nazi's would have been able to give full attention
to the eastern front with the USSR. And they would have defeated the Soviets. After doing that
they would have then (assuming the English sued for peace) Germany would have gone back and invaded
Great Britain.

My what a different map we would have today.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. No. Our material support certainly helped but

the heavy lifting was done by the people of the soviet union. The eastern front was where hitler's armies were defeated.

[DanTex]

47. No

Who is voting yes?

To say the US "won the war" is absolutely false. I remember hearing "we won WW2" back in college from other drunken American college students backpacking around Europe. And I remember thinking, really, nobody has taken a history course?

If any single nation could take credit for defeating Germany, it would be the USSR. The eastern front is where the Germans took the majority of their casualties, and where they ultimately were defeated.

To get a sense of the US vs USSR military involvement, you can compare the number of casualties each took. Depending on the source, the US took something like 300,000 to 500,000, while the USSR took 10 to 20 million. Which is at least 20 times as many. As a comparison, according to wikipedia, the US has taken 4436 casualties in the current Iraq war, while the UK has taken 179. So the relative number of casualties of the USSR versus US in WW2 is similar to the relative number of casualties in the Iraq war of the US versus UK.

OK, those stats are somewhat misleading, the US military contribution to WW2 was surely greater than the UK military contribution to the Iraq war. If you look at German casualties, the Eastern and Western fronts were closer, depending on how you measure, but still the Eastern Front was far, far deadlier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II).


The fact of the matter, though, is that the US never faced the full might of the Germany army. The Soviets did, and meanwhile the US and UK were invading North Africa and then Italy, avoiding, or at least postponing the opening of a real Western front. By the time we did invade Normandy, Germany was greatly weakened, and had essentially already lost the war. This is not to take anything away from the bravery of the troops who landed on D-Day or anyone else. But it's what happened.

If the US not entered the European theater, the biggest change would most likely have been the aftermath. The iron curtain would have been much further west, probably all of Germany, and who knows what other countries would have fallen under Communist control post WW2.

[Cascadian]

48. The Soviet Union played a huge role too but we so did we n/t

It was a joint effort by all parties involved with the Allies.


John

[Puregonzo1188]

50. A lot of people I know from Russia aren't very pleased with the Americans won the war

nonsense.

As to the question, I don't really know. I don't think we could have defeated Hitler without the Allies and I'm not sure sure they could have defeated Hitler without us--though I don't see the Nazis taking over Russia the same way they did as say Poland. Unsure about England.

[Cali_Democrat]

64. I also know many Americans who aren't please with the Russians won the war

nonsense.

I guess it goes both ways.

[Warren DeMontague]

72. I don't know how any clear-eyed historical analysis can discount the soviet contribution

they lost something like 20 million people.

It's not a contest, but if it were, one would HAVE TO acknowledge that the USSR did the lion's share of breaking the back of Nazi Germany. They did.

[Cali_Democrat]

76. My point is that Russia didn't win the war by themselves

and neither did the US.

It was an overall effort amongst the allies. Did the Soviet Union lose more lives? Absolutely. But war contribution is not just about how many lives you lose, it's also about industrial production and other technology like air and sea power.

You're measuring contribution in terms of lives lost only. By that measure, China, Yugoslavia and Poland contributed more to victory in WW2 than the US.

[PavePusher]

86. Russian performance would have been much better.....

had someone pulled a succesful "Operation Valkyrie" on Stalin early on.

And then purged the Commissars from the military....

[JVS]

92. That is wrong.

A struggle for succession and the encouragement of separatists such an assassination would have caused would have let Germany win.

[Cali_Democrat]

52. It was a team effort.

That's why they were called the "allies".

[Cali_Democrat]

57. Interesting link.....I think it's pretty obvious the US contributed greatly to the war effort

It was a team effort, but don't underestimate US industrial production during the war....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

The allies did it together.

[MellowDem]

58. They were needed to win the war....

without the US Germany would have at least been able to settle for peace with the USSR and maintain control of the European mainland. The Soviets would likely not have won against the combined might of all of Europe, which Germany would have at its disposal.

And in the unlikely scenario the Soviets somehow retook Europe, the picture isn't really any brighter. The Soviets were no better than the Nazis, that's for sure. So, for democracy, it was a good thing the US entered the war.

[Modern_Matthew]

65. No. Someone would've taken care of Hitler eventually...

The only justified action (non-nuclear) the U.S. took during WW2 was against Japan.

[bvar22]

69. The Soviets defeated Hitler...

...outside the gates of Stalingrad in 1943.
What happened after that was inevitable.

It is possible (reasonable) that the Allies landed at Normandy and marched to Berlin primarily to prevent the Soviets from conquering ALL of Europe.

American manufacturing, and the bombing of Germany certainly assisted the Soviets,
but to what degree is debatable.

The USA did successfully produce the first deployable Atomic weapon,
and a strategic bomber capable of delivering it anywhere in The World,
so in THAT respect, the USA "WON".
The rest is moot.

[Warren DeMontague]

71. Other: I don't know, either. I think we were a factor, but The Soviets did most of the heavy lifting

against Nazi Germany, to be sure.

[Blue-Jay]

79. Very_Boring_Push-Poll.

The phrasing of your question is not very precise.

What exactly are you asking?

[Very_Boring_Name]

97. I think the question is fairly simple and easy to understand for anyone with half a brain.

You seem to be the only having difficulty with the question :shrug:

[MadHound]

81. Yes, if not for our industrial capability, the Allies would have lost

We weren't just supplying the British, but the Soviets as well. The Soviets couldn't have fielded their army without the weapons that we put into their hands. Neither could the British.

But then again many US companies also continued to supply Germany as well. Imagine the look of surprise on the faces of our soldiers when they saw German ton and a half half tracks rolling towards them all decked out with that familiar blue Ford logo.

But yes, it was our "Arsenal of Democracy" that turned the tide.

[Odin2005]

82. It was a US and USSR tag-team that won it.

Hence the bipolar world that followed the war.

[Romulox]

83. Who cares? In 2011, the "arsenal of democracy" is in ruins, and we are losing a war vs. Afghanistan

:shrug:

[Bluenorthwest]

87. What if Superman had grown up in Germany instead of America?

From SNL http://snltranscripts.jt.org/78/78jwhatif.phtml

[CJvR]

89. Yes.

Perhaps not so much on the battlefield as in the factories.

The British Empire went bankrupt in 1941, without Lend and Lease the British contribution to the war effort would have greatly diminished after that point. The Soviets didn't get that much actual weaponry compared to other L&L items. The Soviet Union built 100.000 tanks while reciving only about 7000 from L&L. But it was the L&L that allowed the SU to concentrate so hard on weapons production. Without L&L the Soviet war production would have been forced to diversify much more and thus drop the weapon production greatly.

Would a bankrupt British Empire and the Soviet Union, forced to rely on internal production exclusively, have been able to beat the nazis? I doubt it. The US contribution to the war effort went way beyond just the battlefield contribution.

[xmas74]

95. For a second there, I thought my grandfather

was still in the land of the living. He'd get a kick out of this discussion.

(He was in N. Africa and in Italy and said it took them a few years to "work out the kinks.")

[Baclava]

96. Guts and glory. They had it all....to the shores of Tripoli

US Navy and Marine Corps Casualty Statistics for World War II

Source:

US Navy. Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. History of the Medical Departmentof the United States Navy in World War II: The Statistics of Diseases and Injuries. vol.3. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1950. OCLC 04067096.

Place of action KIA Wounded, Died, Invalided
died later POW from service
----------------------------------------------------------------------
North African landings
Navy 472 17 0 80
Marine 3 1 0 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sicilian landings
Navy 521 24 0 33
Marine 1 0 0 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Italian landings
Navy 788 31 1 74
Marine 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Landings in Southern France
Navy 36 8 0 20
Marine 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion of France
Navy 1068 32 2 263
Marine 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic or Caribbean area unspecified
Navy 2443 14 0 79
Marine 1 0 0 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Attack on Pearl Harbor
Navy 1744 17 2 41
Marine 99 2 0 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fall of the Philippines
Navy 337 2 630 3
Marine 89 0 413 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Netherlands, East Indies engagement
Navy 1656 12 94 7
Marine 36 0 7 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific raids
Navy 40 0 4 2
Marine 0 1 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Battle of Coral Sea
Navy 537 6 1 11
Marine 19 2 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Battle of Midway
Navy 301 8 1 15
Marine 39 1 0 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalcanal, Tulagi landings
Navy 1176 20 2 85
Marine 988 77 12 365
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Battle of Savo Island
Navy 936 11 0 51
Marine 33 0 0 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Battle of Eastern Solomons
Navy 85 4 0 4
Marine 0 1 0 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Battle of Cape Esperance
Navy 168 1 0 5
Marine 7 0 0 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Battle of Santa Cruz Islands
Navy 242 5 0 16
Marine 12 3 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Battle of Guadalcanal
Navy 971 20 2 62
Marine 10 1 0 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Battle of Tassafaronga
Navy 389 8 0 8
Marine 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Capture of remaining Solomons
Navy 1246 56 0 174
Marine 781 68 26 277
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Battle of Tarawa
Navy 724 3 0 23
Marine 950 34 0 210
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Battle of Cape Gloucester
Navy 145 9 0 20
Marine 325 33 2 157
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion of Marshall Islands
Navy 187 3 1 44
Marine 401 34 0 141
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion of Marianas
Navy 513 43 1 228
Marine 3995 342 0 2138
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion of Palau Islands
Navy 185 10 0 68
Marine 1171 101 1 681
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Landings on Biak New Guinea
Navy 164 6 0 40
Marine 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bombardment of Truk
Navy 78 3 0 12
Marine 7 0 0 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to the Philippines
Navy 4026 270 40 830
Marine 132 10 1 25
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Battle of Iwo Jima
Navy 934 48 0 349
Marine 4907 614 0 3114
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bombardments of Formosa French Indochina
Navy 269 9 2 30
Marine 3 0 0 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bombing and landing on Okinawa
Navy 3809 219 0 876
Marine 2897 347 0 2028
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bombardment of Kyushu Island and Japan
Navy 963 6 1 38
Marine 61 0 0 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aleutian or Alaskan area, unspecified
Navy 177 1 0 8
Marine 2 0 0 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific or Asiatic area, unspecified
Navy 4462 12 93 188
Marine 20 0 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
After 1 July 1945
Navy 1103 14 2 88
Marine 41 0 4 172
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific action not determined
Navy 1719 20 30 773
Marine 346 10 43 721
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, all actions
Navy 34607 972 909 4647
Marine 17376 1682 510 10063
Total 51983 2654 1419 14710