Why do some Americans believe they single handedly won WW2?

[Stryder50]

It unlikely Germany would have gotten any benefit from occupying the USSR. It would have taken enormous security forces to stabilize any pro-German government.

My mis-statement it would seem.

Germany would not have needed to conquer ALL of Russia/USSR. Mainly that portion West of the Urals would have been enough to take the Soviet Union out of serious contention-threat. Especially if there was no, or very little, Lend-Lease going into Russia.

There was significant anti-Communist feelings and resentment in some of those parts and populations of Russia that the Germans did occupy, unfortunately their bias blinded them to proper support and exploitation of those parts of the Soviet peoples they had temporary control over. Had the Nazis been smart enough to play the liberator role rather than the conquering butchers, things might have gone better in their occupied areas.

Thing is that in modern times, it takes significant outside support and aid for any resistance/guerilla efforts to have meaningful impact and threat. People can not smelt metal into firearms in their backyard nor make ammunition ~shell casings/propellant/bullets there also. Modern firearm weapons require modern industrial base to manufacture. Without such to produce the weapons and a way to get them to the "insurgents", resistance/guerilla movements will be small scale and short lived.

Germany needed the enormous security forces in it's rear areas because there started out enough weapons to get that resistance going, and then more weapons were able to be smuggled in. And Germany didn't do what could have been done to win over those people in the occupied areas had Germany played the "liberator" role effectively.

And yes, I'll agree that the mindset and attitude of the Nazis towards the untermensch made it unlikely they would have done the smarter course of occupation.

 

[my2¢]

It seems to crop up quite a few times where posters claim everyone would be speaking German if the US hadn't won WW2.

It sometime in the very late 50s or 1960 while sitting on couch I asked my mom what would have happened if we lost the war. She replied that some little Japanese boy would be sitting there instead of me.

 

[westwall]

The Soviets had the German advances blunted somewhat by the end of 1942, but 1943 still saw German advances until the the Battle of Kursk in July 1943. At that point the German's began to lose ground and retreat.

As pointed out many times here, USA Lend-Lease was essential to keeping the Allies in the fight and making the progress they did.

France as a nation was occupied and it's colonies the source of Free French military were largely supplied with USA aircraft, combat vehicles, weapons, trucks, ammo and food.

UK was dependent upon food and essential resources and equipment coming in across the North Atlantic via merchant ship convoys out of the USA. The Battle of the Atlantic against Germany's U-boats was therefore of greatest importance and affect.
As for the German invasion of the UK, such was never in the German pre-war plans. It was largely canceled because the Germans doubted the could prevent the Royal Navy from intervening and the lack of real amphibious capability. River barges to cross Channel was also a recipe for disaster.

As for the Soviet Union, the war on their land could have last a lot longer (years?) were it not for USA Lend-Lease, especially during 1942-1943. Most important was the food we shipped which kept that country from starving and the tens of thousands of trucks that we sent as well, allowing better transport of troops and supplies to the front.

The Soviet ZIS that they started the war with was plentiful and had it's uses, but only rear wheel drive limited it's us off-road. For that matter most Soviet roads being unpaved, about half the year they became impassable mud.

ZIS-5 (truck) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Where-as the USA Studebaker is the truck that helped Russia win their part of the war.

How the U.S. Studebaker became the Soviet 'victory truck' (PHOT​

...
The Studebaker deserves a monument like those everywhere to the famous T-34 tank,” wrote artilleryman Ilya Maryasin. The darling of Soviet military drivers, the Studebaker-US6 was a real lifesaver for the Red Army, which experienced a chronic shortage of vehicles throughout WWII. It was the most exported vehicle to the USSR under the Lend-Lease program — up to 200,000 were delivered to the country during the conflict.
....
Interesting photos in the above link.
....

In USA markings (white star) but same as provided to USSR.
Ford, GMC, & Dodge also provide similar 6x6, as well as some 4x4s.

Absolutely true. The US mobilized the Soviet army. While the Germans were still primarily using horse drawn wagons, the Soviet army was driving US trucks.

Which we GAVE them.

 

[Zavulon]

My mis-statement it would seem.

Germany would not have needed to conquer ALL of Russia/USSR. Mainly that portion West of the Urals would have been enough to take the Soviet Union out of serious contention-threat. Especially if there was no, or very little, Lend-Lease going into Russia.

There was significant anti-Communist feelings and resentment in some of those parts and populations of Russia that the Germans did occupy, unfortunately their bias blinded them to proper support and exploitation of those parts of the Soviet peoples they had temporary control over. Had the Nazis been smart enough to play the liberator role rather than the conquering butchers, things might have gone better in their occupied areas.

But the things might have gone worse for their fighting Armies. One thing if you are fighting to grab land, pillage goods, take food and booze, rape women, enslave local people and become rich, and absolutely another if you are fighting to "save Vietnam from Vietnamese" or to "save Russia from Russians". Pretty different level of motivation (especially for the Germans).

Thing is that in modern times, it takes significant outside support and aid for any resistance/guerilla efforts to have meaningful impact and threat. People can not smelt metal into firearms in their backyard nor make ammunition ~shell casings/propellant/bullets there also. Modern firearm weapons require modern industrial base to manufacture. Without such to produce the weapons and a way to get them to the "insurgents", resistance/guerilla movements will be small scale and short lived.

Germany needed the enormous security forces in it's rear areas because there started out enough weapons to get that resistance going, and then more weapons were able to be smuggled in. And Germany didn't do what could have been done to win over those people in the occupied areas had Germany played the "liberator" role effectively.

And yes, I'll agree that the mindset and attitude of the Nazis towards the untermensch made it unlikely they would have done the smarter course of occupation.

It's not just Nazies. It's German (or even European) mentality (including the modern one). There is absolutely no difference between behaviour of German "knights" in Northern Crusades, Thugs of Livonian order, Swedens, Frenches, Nazies or modern Democrats.

 

[westwall]

But that wasn't rape, it was business.
Usually took more than Hershey bars. Stocking, cigarettes, Spam, etc. was needed.

The British soldiers had a saying about American soldiers...."they were overpaid, over sexed, and OVER HERE!"

 

[Stryder50]

The British soldiers had a saying about American soldiers...."they were overpaid, over sexed, and OVER HERE!"

That was nearly half of the civilians sentiment as well.
The other half (especially the lassies) were glad we were all three.

 

[Stryder50]

Yes. But in the alternative reality, in which the Germans don't plan to attack Russia, and have more resources to fight Britain (both German resources and bought in Russian resources) America might be forced to increase supply of British forces (and decrease supply of KMT).


May be. But after Khalkhin Gol, Russia and Japan signed mutually acceptable treaty, and more likely, if in the our alternative reality Pearl Harbour happened too, Russia (and her CCP proxy) had a choice: a) to fight KMT and Japanese simultaneously or b) first finish KMT and then fight Japanese or c) demand significant material American support and greater part in Japanese territory (and serious security guarantees in the post war world order) and fight against Japan in the joint front of USSR, USA, CCP and KMT.

Considering that Hitler had a long standing goal to crush Marxism/Communism it would be a 'Twilight Zone' alternative reality that you are suggesting, advocating.
Russia was going to be embroiled in war against Nazi Germany per most reliable probabilities and odds. Hence from 1941 to mid 1945 Russia had little resource to fight Japan, nor much leverage to make demands on USA and UK.
BTW, good thing Stalin trusted that treaty with Japan since he pulled the bulk of best units in the East to rush to the front in West to face off the German invasion.

 

[Orangecat]

It seems to crop up quite a few times where posters claim everyone would be speaking German if the US hadn't won WW2.

Time for America to get over its WWII nostalgia

It was the nadir of human history, not a Saturday morning cartoon

theweek.com

There's nothing wrong with an interest in history. But the distorted and chauvinist way the war's history has been presented in the popular imagination is a major problem. It's long since time Americans adopted a more realistic and sensible attitude towards World War II.

The greatest error of historical fact in America's popular interpretation of the war is the idea that the United States won it pretty much single-handedly.

So despite actual history, do you still believe America single-handedly won WW2? Why? Is it something school taught you or your parents? Genuinely would like to know.

Not single-handedly, but most intelligent people realize the US participation was a huge factor in the defeat of the axis powers. If we had allied with Germany, they would’ve won.

 

[rightwinger]

The millions of Soviets who died were the direct result of Stalin’s lack of compassion for his people. Starvation, mass human wave attacks across minefields, NKVD “machine gun battalions” behind regular troops to punish any withdrawal attempts.

Still forced Hitler to put most of his military forces on the Eastern Front.
If Germany had put its best forces on the Western Front, we never would have taken it back

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

More correctly the next level up the command chain discounted what the radar team reported just before they turned the device off. Upper command thought they were seeing the scheduled flight of B-17s due to arrive about that time.

As so often happens, it isn't the hardware's fault but that of the humans in the operating/command loop.

If I was teaching a lesson on the topic, I would have included that information. Thank you, Captain, Obvious, for your attention to detail.

 

[rightwinger]

It sometime in the very late 50s or 1960 while sitting on couch I asked my mom what would have happened if we lost the war. She replied that some little Japanese boy would be sitting there instead of me.

Neither Germany or Japan were capable of invading the US

 

[rightwinger]

The Russians would have never survived without our merchant fleet giving them supplies. It was a joint effort as any real historian knows. The Russians did little against the Japanese until they had beaten Germany, while we fought both. Without the US to assist in the invasion, the Brits would have been in a battle of attrition after France and other countries fell to Germany. Had Japan not brought the US into the war, Germany would likely have built atomic weapons first and then conquered Britain.

The topic of the thread is that the US single handedly won WWII
When I was in HS, what I learned about WWII was Pearl Harbor, D Day, Battle of the Bulge and Hiroshima
They never taught us about Barbarosa, Stalingrad or Kursk.

 

[westwall]

Still forced Hitler to put most of his military forces on the Eastern Front.
If Germany had put its best forces on the Western Front, we never would have taken it back

Untrue, and they DID have some of their best units in the west, we demolished them. Panzer Lehr, 2nd SS Panzer, 12th SS, 6th Falschirmjaeger Rgt, etc.

Ever heard of the Falaise Gap?

 

[JWBooth]

The western front would have been gained faster, and more efficiently, if Montgomery had been relegated to head waiter at a west end dinner establishment.

 

[westwall]

The western front would have been gained faster, and mor efficiently, if Montgomery had been relegated to head waiter at a west end dinner establishment.

The one good thing that Monty did was save the 8th Army. After that he was pretty useless.

 

[rightwinger]

The western front would have been gained faster, and more efficiently, if Montgomery had been relegated to head waiter at a west end dinner establishment.

Market Garden was a disaster and set the war back six months

 

[JWBooth]

Market Garden was a disaster and set the war back six months

Montgomery’s plan and failure.

 

[westwall]

Market Garden was a disaster and set the war back six months

Yup, yet another Monty failure.

 

[Stryder50]

Untrue, and they DID have some of their best units in the west, we demolished them. Panzer Lehr, 2nd SS Panzer, 12th SS, 6th Falschirmjaeger Rgt, etc.

Ever heard of the Falaise Gap?

IRCC the German army often sent panzer units/divisions to France for rest, refit, and rearm. Hence the units you mention had earlier fought on the Russian Front.

 

[Stryder50]

Yup, yet another Monty failure.

Especially when it seems there was aerial intel of heavier German forces in the area than Monty expected. He dismissed those intel reports and photos, IRCC.