Did the USA actually "win" World War II?

[MaddAdam]

Conventional wisdom for many is that the Soviet sacrifice and effort was the decisive factor in an Allied victory in World War Two and that US triumphalism is misplaced.

But did the USA actually provide the decisive elements?

They did after all:

* Conduct the vast majority of the heavy lifting in the Pacific, and almost all of it in terms of resources and infrastructure.

* Provide the Russians with vast amounts of supplies and equipment that without which, the Russian war effort would have been severely hampered.

* Provide vast amounts of supplies and equipment to the Brits that kept them up and fighting and more importantly, able to offer a European base from which to attack ze Germans.

* By mere dint of their participation they provided troops numbers and the ability to "project" their power that kept the Germans under attack and spending precious resources on numerous front - North Africa, Italy, D-Day and France, the daytime air war over Germany, the u-boat war in the Atlantic.

So, on points decision, did the US actually "win the war" for the Allies?

 

[clogged]

There's an alternative point of view which suggests Germany were always destined to lose.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...war-machine-and-the-wages-of-destruction.html

 

[iluvparis]

The Soviets destroyed 75% of the German forces and suffered about 20,000,000 dead as a result.

Would the US have been willing to make a similar sacrifice?

 

[Bradesmaen]

The Soviets destroyed 75% of the German forces and suffered about 20,000,000 dead as a result.

Would the US have been willing to make a similar sacrifice?

For starters the US wouldn't have given 1/3rd of their "infantry" a gun and the other two thirds nothing. They also don't tend to kill their own and they were superior in military tactics to the Russians.

 

[iluvparis]

For starters the US wouldn't have given 1/3rd of their "infantry" a gun and the other two thirds nothing. They also don't tend to kill their own and they were superior in military tactics to the Russians.

Solid job of not answering the question.

 

[MaddAdam]

The US demonstrated a willingness to take very heavy casualties in both the European and Pacific theatres.

I suspect the Americans would very happily have used a nuke/s on Germany if required to win.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Solid job of not answering the question.

My point was, I doubt they would have had such a high casualty count in the same situation.

 

[Admiral Byng]

There were two major theatres of war, Europe and the Pacific. In the first one yes, definitely the USA won the war since it ended with the unconditional surrender of the enemy. You don't get much more of a win than than that, so it's hard to see any merit for an argument they didn't win the Pacific side of it. In the European side of it they were on the winning team, and a major player in that team.

 

[sydney eagle]

The U S was certainly on the winning side in the war and could be said to be a major contributor but without the British who provided a platform from which to invade Europe and the Soviets who tied down, chewed up and eventually spat out vast numbers of axis troops the war could not have been won.

 

[Lester Burnham]

There were two major theatres of war, Europe and the Pacific. In the first one yes, definitely the USA won the war since it ended with the unconditional surrender of the enemy. You don't get much more of a win than than that, so it's hard to see any merit for an argument they didn't win the Pacific side of it. In the European side of it they were on the winning team, and a major player in that team.

Remind us why USA got involved and became the enemy of Germany, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Finland, Croatia, Albania etc.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Remind us why USA got involved and became the enemy of Germany, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Finland, Croatia, Albania etc.

because after the pearl Harbour attack Hitler unilaterally declared war on the USA.

 

[John]

Conventional wisdom for many is that the Soviet sacrifice and effort was the decisive factor in an Allied victory in World War Two and that US triumphalism is misplaced.

I do not agree that US triumphalism is particularly misplaced per se but the reality is that the Eastern Front was beyond decisive, it smashed the Nazi war machine to pulp. The Wehrmacht was incapable of defending itself on other fronts once the tide had turned in favour of the USSR.

But did the USA actually provide the decisive elements?

The produced a lot of decisive events as you have discussed below but in the end the red army's brutal defeat of the Wehrmacht from the battle of Kursk onwards was the pivotal point of the war in Europe.

They did after all:

* Conduct the vast majority of the heavy lifting in the Pacific, and almost all of it in terms of resources and infrastructure.

Yes they did. But....... the USSR had bloodied the nose of the Japanese Imperial army in a serious of border wars prior to WW2 proper. The Japanese knew the Imperial army was no match for the Red Army. The USSR had bigger issues back in the west. The USA had asked the USSR to intervene with the USSR declining until the Nazis had been defeated.

* Provide the Russians with vast amounts of supplies and equipment that without which, the Russian war effort would have been severely hampered.

Yes but not as much to make it decisive. The British supplied as well. The USSR was able to take vast amounts of equipment etc back past the Urals in fairly quick time considering the speed of initial victorious on the eastern front by the Wehrmacht.

* Provide vast amounts of supplies and equipment to the Brits that kept them up and fighting and more importantly, able to offer a European base from which to attack ze Germans.

Yes but D-Day happened long after the tide had turned in the eastern front. D-Day was obliviously decisive but was it the "decisive element" in the European theatre? I suspect not. Though the war may have lasted longer in the end the Red Army would have been in Paris eventually.

* By mere dint of their participation they provided troops numbers and the ability to "project" their power that kept the Germans under attack and spending precious resources on numerous front - North Africa, Italy, D-Day and France, the daytime air war over Germany, the u-boat war in the Atlantic.

"precious resources"? The US economy positively boomed in the WW2. Out of all the nations that fought in WW2 if ever a country was victor economically it was the US. That is not criticism. That is just the way it was.

So, on points decision, did the US actually "win the war" for the Allies?

Lets just say that it was a tag team effort from the USA and the USSR.

The US demonstrated a willingness to take very heavy casualties in both the European and Pacific theatres.

I suspect the Americans would very happily have used a nuke/s on Germany if required to win.

I am not sure that I agree with the 1st sentence as blanket statement. The western allies were prone to be conservative in comparison the both German/USSR and Japan in the way they went about the business of war. The leadership knew, naturally, that their were to be losses but IMO went out of there way to keep them to a minimum. For example from my readings the Battle of Tarawa was a great shock to the US (government/military and public) in terms of that the Japanese were willing to fight to the last man for a speck of an island. From there on the US military was aware of public opinion and did what it could to keep losses to a minimum. The Battle of Okinawa for example turned far more bloody than expected and with that the decision to bomb atomically was made.

I suspect that the US would not have "very happily" nuked Germany. I am no died in the wool supporter of US foreign intervention over the years but to give them their due they did not take the attacks on Japan lightly and I suspect that they would not have taken a similar attack on Germany lightly either.

 

[MaddAdam]

The U S was certainly on the winning side in the war and could be said to be a major contributor but without the British who provided a platform from which to invade Europe and the Soviets who tied down, chewed up and eventually spat out vast numbers of axis troops the war could not have been won.

Would the Brits have survived without US aid? Could the Soviets have done what they did without US aid?

 

[Some Idiot]

The US demonstrated a willingness to take very heavy casualties in both the European and Pacific theatres.

I suspect the Americans would very happily have used a nuke/s on Germany if required to win.

Is using a nuke considered a victory? There are some who might argue no.

 

[John]

because after the pearl Harbour attack Hitler unilaterally declared war on the USA.

Ahh yes one of those often forgotten facts by some. I wonder how many understand the massive support for neutrality in the US at the time.

 

[John]

Is using a nuke considered a victory? There are some who might argue no.

There are plenty who have argued no. There was along debate on here a while back.

 

[sydney eagle]

Would the Brits have survived without US aid? Could the Soviets have done what they did without US aid?

The Soviets, certainly. The Brits most probably; for a long time they were getting aid from Canada and other commonwealth countries , defending themselves and giving aid to the Soviets without any help from the U S. The war between the Soviet Union and the Axis was not won because of aid from the U SA or with American equipment, it was won by the Russian people and their own ability to build what they needed to win (plus some help from the British).

 

[Taylor]

Ahh yes one of those often forgotten facts by some. I wonder how many understand the massive support for neutrality in the US at the time.

So much so that the government couldn't send aid to the English without it being worded as a loan.

 

[MaddAdam]

For the record my own view is that the Soviets did indeed break the Nazi war machine in a decisive fashion, and probably could have done so without the intervention of the Americans.

Always good to discuss these things though.

I do think the US contribution is somewhat underplayed though.

 

[Some Idiot]

For the record my own view is that the Soviets did indeed break the Nazi war machine in a decisive fashion, and probably could have done so without the intervention of the Americans.

Always good to discuss these things though.

I do think the US contribution is somewhat underplayed though.

I think the US contribution is often underplayed by others because it is overplayed by people in the US. Overly simple look at the situation? Probably. But just something I've thought about.

 

[John]

For the record my own view is that the Soviets did indeed break the Nazi war machine in a decisive fashion, and probably could have done so without the intervention of the Americans.

Always good to discuss these things though.

I do think the US contribution is somewhat underplayed though.

I think you are unfair to the US. In just about every book I have ever read and anyone that I have discussed the issues with the US is never underplayed.

 

[Admiral Byng]

When the Germans invaded Russia, the Russian were pretty woeful at the time. They were unorganised, ill-equipped and technologically backward, plus they were crippled leadership-wise by Stalin removing competent people from important positions for fear they might be plotting to overthrow him.

It took them quite a while to get their s**t together, to design and build their own modern equipment and in sufficient numbers to make them competitive with the Germans. In the meantime they survived on supplies from the Allies. It is hard to know if they have held out long enough not to be defeated without it.

 

[skilts]

Certain elements of the Japanese polity still see WW II as a temporary setback, rather than a capitulation.

 

[Lester Burnham]

because after the pearl Harbour attack Hitler unilaterally declared war on the USA.

Simplistic. The US was already heavily assisting with the British war effort before this point.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Simplistic. The US was already heavily assisting with the British war effort before this point.

Well of course it's simplistic, it's an internet forum, not a peer reviewed history text-book; and I'm a slow typist.