Did the USA actually "win" World War II?

[madmug]

The question is, as always, problematic. The US public, & us have been fed a steady diet of US WW2 film footage & lots of war movies & or course Rat Patrol on TV. So its natural to develop a particular view of events.
Its more arguable that the result of WW2 was achieved because of a number of factors which include the British empire factors, the Royal Navy & RAF doing their bit at just the right time, The huge sacrifices of the Red Army & Russian people, The US industrial might & military capabilities. German arrogance, Hitlers stupidity, Japanese industrial weaknesses. etc etc.

 

[Andre]

Don't overate Russia. They were really only fighting on one front unlike other combatants in the war.

If Japan had engaged against Russia instead of bombing the Yanks that field of battle could have been very different and potentially crippled Germany's biggest threat on mainland Europe.

I don't think it's a case of over stating Russia rather than understating the other countries. Though yes Russia had the one front. If the US hadn't joined the war the Germans wouldn't have been fighting the Brits, Australia etc. in North Africa and the like and would have been pinned down in the UK with a much smaller force. With the freed up divisions and air force the Germans would have been a good chance to take Moscow during that time the Soviets were a disorganised rabble. And even without putting troops in Russia, if Japan had been freed up the threat of their air force and navy having free reign in the far East would likely have led to more troops left there, again giving the Germans the chance to make critical gains before the Russians got organised.

 

[little graham]

The question is, as always, problematic. The US public, & us have been fed a steady diet of US WW2 film footage & lots of war movies & or course Rat Patrol on TV. So its natural to develop a particular view of events.
Its more arguable that the result of WW2 was achieved because of a number of factors which include the British empire factors, the Royal Navy & RAF doing their bit at just the right time, The huge sacrifices of the Red Army & Russian people, The US industrial might & military capabilities. German arrogance, Hitlers stupidity, Japanese industrial weaknesses. etc etc.

Oh god, all the allies propaganda is flowing freely now. Reality is we're till paying for Churchills stupidity, should I say corruption.

It is true that volunteer divisions raised in Australia and New Zealand had an enormous impact on 2 crucial battles. Not many had the heart to fight the Germans, except the smallest of minds from Australia, who thought Britian was some morally superior race. Don't want to use the word "fanatics" and draw (apt)similarities to the Waffen SS. It is of note, since someone brought up that subject of how similar the AIF fought to the waffen SS and was raised,that numerous atrocities were committed against the Japanese eighteenth army by these volunteer units. If the RAF received no petrol from america its precious spitfires would of been land based. Good luck with that. The RAN was supplied by America under something called lend lease.Its debt was not payed back until 2006. Everything Brittan accused Germany of being it was guilty of alot worse.America propped up Blightly as little as could, kept her weak at knees as long as she could.

It is also true that that one point America actually considered getting its hands dirty in that war.But the poorly trained Hungarian second army getting over run by elite Russian units on the banks of the volga changed everything.Stalin knew the Americans were foxing the whole time,making her bare the brunt of everything.Really was cruel.

 

[skipper kelly]

did someone win?

 

[little graham]

did someone win?

Considering how the ruling class has lied to its own people(american) since before ww1. That sir, is a brilliant question.

 

[Tas]

Axis idiocy won the war. Hitler betraying the non-aggression pact with Russia, Japan going to war with the USA.

Also, we were fortunate that Germany had factional R&D rivalry and had three different institutions which did not share knowledge or research between eachother in relation to the enrichment of uranium sufficient to produce a bomb.

Given they were in the lead in nuclear technology and had produced fission reaction necessary to produce enriched uranium long before the Americans did, it was just dumb luck really that they didn't focus on making a bomb a lot sooner, they only began in mid 1944 and by then it was too late.

Because they were already stuck in the cycle of war, their researched leaned towards more practical uses of technology, like they wasted a lot of time on the development of nuclear powered submarines.

If Hitler had the bomb, he would have dropped it on everyone, he wouldn't have stopped at two cities.

 

[John]

As you say, in November 1940 there was overwhelming sentiment in the USA not to join the war in Europe. But this is contrary to your assertion that there was neutral sentiment by the public at large. Only 15% supported the US joining the war on Britain's side, Yet by December 1941 the USA was at war with Germany. How did Roosevelt convince the American people to go to war?

This dramatic change in position was not a result of the Japs attacking Pearl Harbor or the Germans subsequently declaring war on the USA. The USA had already picked sides by 1939 and although not formally in a state of war with Germany implemented a host of measures that supported Britain and weakened the German position.There was state of hostilities between the USA and Germany before the two countries were officially at war.

For example, the Lend lease of 1941 was preceded by the Neutrality Act of 1939 that provided US arms to the Britain by cash and carry.

For example the Destroyers for Bases Agreement where in September 1940, fifty US battleships were transferred to the British navy.

For example, the British invaded neutral Iceland then passed it on to the control of the USA in July 1941.

What I am saying is that the USA, ie Roosevelt, made a choice to enter the European sphere. It was certainly not as simplistic as Admiral Byng's point that the USA entering the was was due to Hitler declaring war.

And once you arrive at the conclusion that the US chose to enter WW!! you need to consider why they did so and what were their objectives.

I could go and look through all these books that I have a get stuck into the statistics from them and the various polls that I have read about and get all wonkish but I am not sure what we are now debating.
Simplistically Hitler declaring war was all that was needed to bring the US into the war after a fair bit of neutral sentimentally from both the public and Congress. I am not sure that it is that controversial to be frank. Yeah sure they aided Britain through various means though in the end they did make the British pay for it until they were broke and then it became lend lease that IIRC was only paid back in full until about 15 years ago. Allies sure but the British paid for it. In the end the attack on Pearl Harbour followed by Hitler's declaration was "it". Again I am not sure what is particularly controversial, I just did not understand the snide comment to the original OP. Having said that I am sure their is a conspiracy theorist who has appeared who you can get your teeth stuck into

 

[BobbyMorri]

The USA become a global superpower and dominated world politics for the next 70 odd years. That by itself is a definition of winning.

They were the leading power in beating Japan and a major power in beating Germany. Without the USA, there is no doubt that Japan would have won the Pacific(or not lost) as their was no navy strong enough to defeat them. And there are major doubts about if the USSR could have lasted without the resources from the allies in its fight against Germany.

Likewise i dont think the US would have defeated Germany without the USSR fighting. It would have been near impossible to land an army onto mainland Europe and then breakout. in saying that, Germany could have been ruined by Allied air power(or nukes) so that peace(or the killing of Hitler) would have been desirable to most Germans.

 

[skilts]

Considering how the ruling class has lied to its own people(american) since before ww1. That sir, is a brilliant question.

Hardly unexpected from him. No country has ever won a war, given that they all suffered casualties. It was when I was a roped in to being a keynote speaker at a Legacy function in Hobart that I heard a veteran of WW II say to me, "For those of us who were there, every day is ANZAC Day."

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Oh god, all the allies propaganda is flowing freely now. Reality is we're till paying for Churchills stupidity, should I say corruption.

It is true that volunteer divisions raised in Australia and New Zealand had an enormous impact on 2 crucial battles. Not many had the heart to fight the Germans, except the smallest of minds from Australia, who thought Britian was some morally superior race. Don't want to use the word "fanatics" and draw (apt)similarities to the Waffen SS. It is of note, since someone brought up that subject of how similar the AIF fought to the waffen SS and was raised,that numerous atrocities were committed against the Japanese eighteenth army by these volunteer units. If the RAF received no petrol from america its precious spitfires would of been land based. Good luck with that. The RAN was supplied by America under something called lend lease.Its debt was not payed back until 2006. Everything Brittan accused Germany of being it was guilty of alot worse.America propped up Blightly as little as could, kept her weak at knees as long as she could.

It is also true that that one point America actually considered getting its hands dirty in that war.But the poorly trained Hungarian second army getting over run by elite Russian units on the banks of the volga changed everything.Stalin knew the Americans were foxing the whole time,making her bare the brunt of everything.Really was cruel.

what the * are you dribbling on about? australian troops were placed where they were needed. didn't have the heart? you do realise how small australian population was back then? of course troop numbers in europe were low. the majority of the AIF low and behold were placed along australian boarders.

as for so called "atrocities" by the AIF all were certainly justified given the context, take for example the very first battle australian forces faced against the japanese after the battle the commander of the troops walked over to an injured jap that had surrendered the bloke detonated a grenade killing him. from that moment on rule 303 was unofficially brought back and for a long time japanese forces trying to surrender more often then not got shot in the head.

as for your britian was worse crap i never recall english death troops smashing infants heads into trees because they happened to be jews. and the yanks kept the births on their feet for years that was the whole point of the wolf pack submarine fleet that required over 300 subs to cut off britain.

next the russians weren't highly trained they were piss poorly trained but their was a s**t load of them. hence why they died enmass they were largely conscripts with bugger all training and few supplies. and even then they too had supple from the US.

the reason the yanks left germany to the russians was 1 the enemy was defeated and had no territorial interests 2 there was another throatier of war they were fighting and the troops needed to be relocated (infact the increased troop numbers made a massive difference in the war in pacific)

we get it the entire western world is evil to you, but slanting things to fit your agenda off the backs of people who died actually protecting this country is a more then a bit low.

 

[skilts]

as for so called "atrocities" by the AIF all were certainly justified given the context, take for example the very first battle australian forces faced against the japanese after the battle the commander of the troops walked over to an injured jap that had surrendered the bloke detonated a grenade killing him. from that moment on rule 303 was unofficially brought back and for a long time japanese forces trying to surrender more often then not got shot in the head.

It is rarely acknowledged that Australians murdered defenceless Japanese prisoners during the Kokoda campaign. Part of the reason was because of the treatment of Australians when they fell into Japanese hands - revenge. It was the barbaric treatment, in which our soldiers were treated as objects of bayonet practice by the Japanese, which probably tipped the scales. That the Japanese also decided to perform acts of cannibalism on their Australian captives, because of their hopelessly stretched supply lines, didn't help. What is even more regularly overlooked is WTF would you do with Japanese prisoners, when there existed no facilities to contain them, or render them unlikely to be a future danger? There were no POW camps there, in the middle of an unforgiving, hideously dense jungle. They were fighting, from moment to moment, for their lives, and they thought, that of their country. It is right that these happenings should be acknowledged though, no matter how much it offends current sensibilities.

 

[little graham]

what the **** are you dribbling on about? australian troops were placed where they were needed. didn't have the heart? you do realise how small australian population was back then? of course troop numbers in europe were low. the majority of the AIF low and behold were placed along australian boarders.

Documented history says otherwise. Churchill did everything he could to stop australians defending australia, he wanted them to be used as cannon fodder to slow the Japanese march towards his precious India.He even made sure that they had no arms when they reached australia against his orders,as punishment

as for so called "atrocities" by the AIF all were certainly justified given the context, take for example the very first battle australian forces faced against the japanese after the battle the commander of the troops walked over to an injured jap that had surrendered the bloke detonated a grenade killing him. from that moment on rule 303 was unofficially brought back and for a long time japanese forces trying to surrender more often then not got shot in the head.

Tit for tat doesn't excuse nothing. Are you aware of the villages burned to the ground in New Gunea by Australian forces.Those villages had been part of German new Gunea before the Versailles treaty.

as for your britian was worse crap i never recall english death troops smashing infants heads into trees because they happened to be jews.

The Germans didn't experiment on aboriginal babies because they were aborigonal,while holding thier parents at gun point,after exposing them to nuclear detonations either, whats your point?

next the russians weren't highly trained they were piss poorly trained but their was a s**t load of them. hence why they died enmass they were largely conscripts with bugger all training and few supplies. and even then they too had supple from the US.

there was a vid posted about the myths of the russian german war, watch it.

 

[little graham]

It is rarely acknowledged that Australians murdered defenceless Japanese prisoners during the Kokoda campaign. Part of the reason was because of the treatment of Australians when they fell into Japanese hands - revenge. It was the barbaric treatment, in which our soldiers were treated as objects of bayonet practice by the Japanese, which probably tipped the scales. That the Japanese also decided to perform acts of cannibalism on their Australian captives, because of their hopelessly stretched supply lines, didn't help. What is even more regularly overlooked is WTF would you do with Japanese prisoners, when there existed no facilities to contain them, or render them unlikely to be a future danger? There were no POW camps there, in the middle of an unforgiving, hideously dense jungle. They were fighting, from moment to moment, for their lives, and they thought, that of their country. It is right that these happenings should be acknowledged though, no matter how much it offends current sensibilities.

There was no Australian POW taken during the Owen Stanley campaign that was released/survived. We even lost a CO of an AIF battalion.

You missed the Cowra break out though, cause we could never round them up ,we turned the machine guns on them. or the Gaols all across Australia filled with German and Italian immigrants, locked up during the war and used as slave labor on prison gangs to build pipelines, roads and such

i don't like going on about this s**t Skilts,but when someone tries and claims the high moral ground, when the whole world is flat as a rotten pancake...........

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Who hides it? Certainly the diggers don't. I don't see it as a moral issue. There's countless examples (mostly from yanks who were slow to catch on) of Japanese troops surrendering then attacking troops with what ever they had on them.

It was dishonor to be captured alive for many japanese surrender was just a ruse to kill one more Round eye.

Under those conditions you can't expect a militia force to have the ability to tell which ones are serious and which ones aren't.

They even told a civilians that western troops murdered Childern and raped women, this led to an infamous incident with yank troops were clearing caves of and found civilians, a woman came out surrendering and as the yanks rushed over she lit a match.....unknown to the troops she'd doused herself killing herself and badly wounding several troops killing one.

After that the platoon searching the caves ordered everyone to stay in the caves and shot anyone trying to get out.

If there were troops inside, be there civilians or otherwise the cave was......."cleared."

 

[Doss]

The fact Russia remained clear of a real threat in Siberia was also mostly down to the fact the Japanese realised that, if they were going to be fighting the US and Britain in the Pacific and SE Asia, it would better serve them to sign the non-aggression pact with Russia in 1939.

Russia almost certainly would have found repelling the Germans at Moscow at the end of 1941, and Stalingrad at the end of 1942, much more difficult if they'd been repelling the Japanese in Siberia at the same time.

But then conversely, of course, Japan wouldn't have made as many inroads as they did in SE Asia and Pacific if they'd also been fighting a Siberian campaign, which meant that the US could have poured more troops into Europe and North Africa in early 1942, which then in turn would have dragged German forces away from the Russian front.

All a vicious cycle, really.

 

[Lester Burnham]

did someone win?

Same as all wars. Some people made a fortune.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdf

 

[sydney eagle]

Same as all wars. Some people made a fortune.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdf

Is that the Butler monograph ? One of my favourite military leaders old Smedley !

 

[Smiling Buddha]

Who funded the war?

 

[1061]

I often get annoyed as I'm watching documentaries when Canada gets a gong for their role in WW2 but we don't.
Australia actually ended up as the 4th military power after WW2 and we were probably a long way behind the USA, USSR and the UK but we had developed into a decent middle sized power.

The best thing Australia got out of WW2 was realizing we are a Pacific Nation not a European one and we grew up.

 

[telsor]

Simple answer....It was a team effort.

USA could have won it off their own bat.

Germany one out against Russia probably wouldn't have been good for the Ruskies (it got VERY close for a while there from late 41 through to mid 42 - If the troops/plane/resources on other fronts had of been in Russia, it could well have made the difference ). If the Russians did win alone, it would have taken a lot longer, and cost a lot more lives. (The lack of lend lease also would have hurt a lot...it did a lot of the 'support' stuff for them...I think it was something like 3/4 of the russian armies trucks were made in the USA - tough to supply a relatively modern army without trucks.).

Britain, by themselves, would have lost eventually...The sub war was crippling them, and newer fighters (Fw190) would have brought life back to the Battle of Britain. If they hadn't shifted focus to Russia and concentrated on planes/subs, the Brits mightn't have survived until the US came in (especially if Japan hadn't given the US a nudge along).

Japan wasn't really an issue ... Roosevelt set them up to be the patsy with crippling economic sanctions and they took the bait. Realistically, they couldn't take the war to the US, and as a result they never had a chance. They didn't have the economic strength to fight a sustained war on that level and didn't have the means to end it swiftly.

 

[little graham]

The fact Russia remained clear of a real threat in Siberia was also mostly down to the fact the Japanese realised that, if they were going to be fighting the US and Britain in the Pacific and SE Asia, it would better serve them to sign the non-aggression pact with Russia in 1939.

Russia almost certainly would have found repelling the Germans at Moscow at the end of 1941, and Stalingrad at the end of 1942, much more difficult if they'd been repelling the Japanese in Siberia at the same time.

But then conversely, of course, Japan wouldn't have made as many inroads as they did in SE Asia and Pacific if they'd also been fighting a Siberian campaign, which meant that the US could have poured more troops into Europe and North Africa in early 1942, which then in turn would have dragged German forces away from the Russian front.

All a vicious cycle, really.

In the 30's, the poms and septic tanks started minor embargoes on japan, all while showing off their military might (same actions attributed to ww1's beginnings) The windsor empire stationed 100's of thousands of troops in the region for the purpose of bullying Japan. People don't realize that all the troops captured in singapore,were not there to defend, were there to be antagonists. If you understand war, you look at what the soldiers actually trained for. in Singapores case,they did absolutely no training or maneuvers attributed to the defense of the mainland or Penisular. Hence why they got flogged.
They were there for other reasons.

Britian and America had to be dealt with first, it was obvious the many armies the Russians kept in Siberia had no ability so effect Japanese economy or invade. Unfortunately the british and americans were arrogant, thought they could exploit asia like they always had at gun point, saw no reason to compromise, held it against anyone who tried to reason. Unfortunately it took 30 years and some big casualties in vietnam to realize this mistake.

As another esteemed military poster (he's pretty crappy in the politic forum but everyone has their problems) put it in another thread, Japs were pushed into war.

Americans wern't ready for a ground war with Germany in 42 (look at the performance of their units in bataan, tunisia and new gunea) ,had the Russians been pushed back to the urals, well put it this way, ,the Germans could of ended d day if they wished, while trying to hold back the Russians in 44, so with defense lines only in Russia ,repelling an untrained under equipped army invading the mainland in western Europe,would of been a piece of cake. Doubt the septic tanks would of got passed the 1940 Mechismitt bf109's and 110's

When you look at it, the Russians were the Americans real enemy, but they had to arm them, to stop Germany,who they themselves armed,to stop Russia.Must of hurt. When Germany started beating Russia, America had to invade some place to balance things out so both could beat each other to a pulp.

If you look, Germans came back hard at kursk after Stalingrad, if not for the Tunisia and Italy invasions the Americans quickly made to pressure the Germans, Russia was still one manover away from retreating across the Urals.

 

[BobbyMorri]

I often get annoyed as I'm watching documentaries when Canada gets a gong for their role in WW2 but we don't.
Australia actually ended up as the 4th military power after WW2 and we were probably a long way behind the USA, USSR and the UK but we had developed into a decent middle sized power.

The best thing Australia got out of WW2 was realizing we are a Pacific Nation not a European one and we grew up.

Canada gets mentioned???? i never seen Canada get mentioned. only time i remember them get mentioned was for being apart of D-day and the Atlantic shipping wars. i only just realised it was the Canadians who liberated The Netherlands.

Aus only get mentioned in the early parts of the pacific and African war, cause that was the only real impact we had in it.(apart from existing and giving a base for the Yanks to fightback)

totally agree with how we "grew up" in WW2.

 

[little graham]

Britain, by themselves, would have lost eventually...The sub war was crippling them, and newer fighters (Fw190) would have brought life back to the Battle of Britain. If they hadn't shifted focus to Russia and concentrated on planes/subs, the Brits mightn't have survived until the US came in (especially if Japan hadn't given the US a nudge along).

Lot of people don't realize or take on board that war with Russia was always coming,the sooner the better for the Germans, that they could only afford to lose so many planes in the battle of Britian, a battle not about invasion, but about limiting Britians ability to wage war. People should look at what the Luftwaffe achieved in the Russian offensives, truly remarkable. Had blighty seen the full force of the Luftwaffe, she wouldn't of lasted.

 

[telsor]

The fact Russia remained clear of a real threat in Siberia was also mostly down to the fact the Japanese realised that, if they were going to be fighting the US and Britain in the Pacific and SE Asia, it would better serve them to sign the non-aggression pact with Russia in 1939.

Russia almost certainly would have found repelling the Germans at Moscow at the end of 1941, and Stalingrad at the end of 1942, much more difficult if they'd been repelling the Japanese in Siberia at the same time.

But then conversely, of course, Japan wouldn't have made as many inroads as they did in SE Asia and Pacific if they'd also been fighting a Siberian campaign, which meant that the US could have poured more troops into Europe and North Africa in early 1942, which then in turn would have dragged German forces away from the Russian front.

All a vicious cycle, really.

Nah...

Russia and Japan did go at it in '39...for around 4 months, and the Russians kicked the Japanese, hard. Barely anyone knew, but it convinced the Japense not to try again.

The Japanese never told anyone because, well, they lost and who would want to advertise that?
The Russians never said anything because they were paranoid and secretive.

 

[Doss]

Nah...

Russia and Japan did go at it in '39...for around 4 months, and the Russians kicked the Japanese, hard. Barely anyone knew, but it convinced the Japense not to try again.

The Japanese never told anyone because, well, they lost and who would want to advertise that?
The Russians never said anything because they were paranoid and secretive.

Yeah, I was aware of the brief skirmishes Russia and Japan had in 1939.

And what of the role Japan's invasion of China played in the wider scheme of things?