FattyDingDong said:
mrstickball said:
Troll_Whisperer said:
I said not too long ago in some other thread this same thing. The Soviets were the main force behind the allied victory. The USA's role is overrated by Hollywood movies, WWII would have been won regardless of their involvement. They were wary of Russia's influence in Europe and decided to intervene (hence the Marshal Plan, too, they needed Western Europe to side with the US). The UK (they were fighting alone against occupied Europe at some point!) and Russia (they sacrificed millions of lives to inflict the most damage to Germany than any other nation) were the true heroes IMO. It's a pity Russian people had to defend their country against an asshole (Hitler) so another asshole (Stalin) could fuck them over. |
Very wrong. The US was integral in winning the war for the allies. No allied nation provided more than the other.
If it weren't for US involvment with giving the Soviets supplies through lend-lease, the Soviets would have lost quickly. That is not opinion. That is substantiated fact from the mouth of the Soviet General Gregory Zhukov. Had it not been for that, the Soviets would have lost to the Germans, ending the war.
Additionally, you have the US which singlehandedly turned the tide of the Pacific theater. Remember that one? The war on that front consumed a significant amount of men and materiel for the British, as they were defending their colonies. Had we not of interviened there, the Japanese would have likely been able to crush the Chinese, and turn their attention west to India and possibly Siberia, creating a two-front war for the Soviets, allowing them to lose in yet another scenario.
Do some people overstate what the US did? Probably. Every side turned the tide. Every major allied player contributed significantly to the effort. Remove any one from the picture, and the Axis would have won.
|
yes that is true each nation played a big role in ww2, British were the ones who opposed nazism ever since ww2 had started. Stalin was an idiot for trusting Hitler. But you got something wrong, Americans did not ship enough supplies for the Soviets. Yes it helped but not by much. T-34 Russian tank was made in Russia, Machine Guns/rifles were made in Russia, Aircrafts were produced in Russia, and Katyusha artilery was also made in Russia. Americans did however provide lots of Jeeps and trucks.
|
Where did the Soviets get the metal for their T-34's and machine guns? America. Again, according to the Soviet's own generals, if it were not for American metal and gunpowder, the Nazi's would have driven against Moscow successfully. When Russia built its T-34s, 2/3rds of its entire truck force was American. That significantly bolstered the Soviets' capacity to make war. Imagine the resources they would of had to divert to producing trucks instead of tanks.
The USA in terms of military engagement reduced the length of the war, but they did not win it. The war was really won at Stalingrad and the Battle for Britain. The Pacific theatre and the American involvement on the Western front didn't turn the tides, they just sped up the inevitable.
It is true however that in terms of supply of materiel America was extremely important to the war effort on both fronts, the allies on both fronts were strapped for cash.
My overall opinion is that America made a large contribution to the war effort (though I personally think that military intervention against such an evil should have come much sooner, not just after America itself was attacked) but certainly sacrificed the least of the three major allied powers during the war, largely because they were situated away from the fighting unlike the USSR and the UK.
I may be partially biased against America though simply because of my hate of how much American films underplay all of the other allies sacrifices in WWII, most of them make it look like there were only Americans involved.
Let me throw out a few ideas at you:
Without US involvement, Operation Torch would have likely not existed, and there would have been no Tunisian Campaign by the allies. Because of that, Rommel would have taken Egypt from the British and closed off the Suez as a means of resupply for the British. That meant no additional men or materiel from Britian to supply forces in the Indochina theater, and vice versa. Additionally, without America, that would mean significantly less forces in the Western theater for Hitler to deal with. No worries of an allied landing in Sicily nor Normandy meant that Hitler could have re-organized his forces and pushed eastward at full force. Remember that Stalin was the one that wanted the Allies to land ASAP to split Hitler's forces up. They knew they were being pressed extensively, and needed as much of HItler's army diverted as possible.
Additionally, with Rommel having taken Egypt due to lack of British supplies in a 3rd battle of El Amein, the Nazis could have then driven through the Middle East and cut off Soviet oilfields in the Causus from the south, nullifying the major problem with the Nazi loss at Stalingrad (assuming they would have lost, even with more men/materiel having come from the now-nonexistent western front).
At that juncture, the allies would have been hard pressed for victory. Hitler wanted but never got a one-front war. I've been in another WW2 discussion today about the war and the Soviets, and the reality is that Hitler cared far more to defeat the Russians than the British. Libenstraum's goal was taking Russia, not Britian. Without being pressed significantly by the British, I think things would have turned out far differently.
And again, that doesn't take in the Pacific theater. Without our intervention, Australia and New Zealand would have fallen pretty quickly (your forces were engaged in the Meditteranean, and very vunerable to Japanese attack). Japan would of had a very easy time in the theater had we not committed troops to that theater. We lost more troops in the pacific campaign than the British did, AFAIK, just to give you an idea about the cost of that theater - additiionally, overall, we committed more forces to the war than the Brits did (14m vs. 11m), although we lost about 2/3rds as many soldiers as the Commonwealth did. America lost about 3 times as many casualties in the pacific theater as did the entire commonwealth... Again, to give you an idea of our contribution.
I'm not trying to downplay the British cost of war in WW2, just trying to provide some scale against what the US did. We do beat our chest too much about our contribution to the war, but at the same time, we did engage both theaters significantly, unlike any other beligerent in the war.
