Why do some Americans believe they single handedly won WW2?

[Zavulon]

Yes, I understand that. My point stands.

And my point stands. It wasn't American material support (however useful) that won WWII at European theatre. It wasn't even significant enough to "change the equilibrium". Russia was going to win with or without American help, as well as Europe was going to lose with or without American help or hostile actions.
When the USA are allied with United Europe, even more significant material help caused much lesser practical result.

 

[Zavulon]

Nonsense. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany worked together extensively for several years-they agreed to carve up Poland, and the Soviets supplied grain, phosphates, and oil in return for military technology.

There was mutually profitable trade between August of 1939 and June of 1941. Less than two years. And France, England and America have been trading with Germany since the very end of WWI. Actually, it was exactly the reason of the ressuraction of Germany. If they were keeping Germany under control, or even didn't destroyed system of the collective safety in Europe (based on the alliance England-France-Czechoslovakia-Russia) - the WWII wouldn't happened. But they (especially Brits) decided that "Strong Germany means Strong, anti-Bolshevick Europe" and betrayed their allies.

 

[westwall]

And my point stands. It wasn't American material support (however useful) that won WWII at European theatre. It wasn't even significant enough to "change the equilibrium". Russia was going to win with or without American help, as well as Europe was going to lose with or without American help or hostile actions.
When the USA are allied with United Europe, even more significant material help caused much lesser practical result.

I disagree. Absent the millions of tons of food we sent Russia, and the 600,000 trucks that mobilized their army, the SU would have starved to death.

 

[Zavulon]

I disagree. Absent the millions of tons of food we sent Russia, and the 600,000 trucks that mobilized their army, the SU would have starved to death.

Of course not. It would mean food rationing in Middle Asia (may, of course, with some Tajiks and Uzbeks starving to death and some outbreaks of cannibalism) but it wouldn't mean any significant changes in the Army and Industry supply and the final result of the war.

 

[westwall]

Of course not. It would mean food rationing in Middle Asia (may, of course, with some Tajiks and Uzbeks starving to death and some outbreaks of cannibalism) but it wouldn't mean any significant changes in the Army and Industry supply and the final result of the war.

Yeah, it would. The simple change from a horse drawn logistics train to a truck based one allowed the SU to rebuild their forces much quicker. They were able to travel 5 times further in a day than a comparable German quatermaster unit.

The difference before, and after is night and day.

 

[Dr Grump]

Why are Brits such fags now if they were so badass back then? Hmm?
Our societies are not the same. Yours came from Feudal Lords and Monarchies and ours came from people that went out to the ass end of nowhere and built a thriving civilization with just tools, vision, and drive. We are not the same.
We told Brits to **** off over 200 years ago. And made them.
UK was responsible for the firebombing of Dresden, as I recall. Something tells me your Commie indoctrination in the UK schools left out a lot of the history we were taught. The schools have been commiefied in the UK since the late 1970s
grinding out compliant mushheads, of which you probably are one. I can't fix 12 years of indoctrination, sorry.
Brits did some fighting in N.Africa, too.

1) Not as faggoty as MAGA Deplorables.
2) LOL re fuedal socities. What does it feel like to be under a king now, MAGA ****?
3) You do realise that the Brits who were told to **** off were being told to **** off by other Brits? You do realise that, right?
4) I lived in the UK and went to school there in the 1970s. To say you don't have a clue is an understatement. You do realise that Maggie Thatcher - somebody who is to the right of Attila the Hun - was voted in then, right? She made Ronald Reagan look like a pen pal of Ho Chi Minh, and Mao.

 

[Dr Grump]

why do some Americans think they won WWII on their own.
Simple: They're ******* idiots.

 

[Litwin]

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.

Americans believe they single handedly won WW2? with UK SUPPORT​

 

[Deadstick]

why do some Americans think they won WWII on their own.
Simple: They're ******* idiots.

They think Hollywood bullshit is real.

 

[Deadstick]

Most of the fighting in the West was after D-day before that the Soviets had done the heavy lifting, even on D-Day more British and Canadian soldiers landed i Normandy, about 75 to 80 thousand British and Canadians and 55 thousand Americans, but i don't take anything away from any of them, all brave men, also men from other Countries like the free French like the Kieffer Commando who landed on Sword beach, i was there on vacation two years ago and took a picture of the three who were killed on landing.

 

[rightwinger]

They think Hollywood bullshit is real.

Hollywood shows Pearl Harbor, Midway, D Day and Hiroshima

They never showed Leningrad, Stalingrad or Kursk

 

[Meathead]

Hollywood shows Pearl Harbor, Midway, D Day and Hiroshima

They never showed Leningrad, Stalingrad or Kursk

Purty sure there was a Hollywood movie called Enemy at the Gate about Stalingrad.

 

[Jarlaxle]

And my point stands. It wasn't American material support (however useful) that won WWII at European theatre. It wasn't even significant enough to "change the equilibrium". Russia was going to win with or without American help, as well as Europe was going to lose with or without American help or hostile actions.
When the USA are allied with United Europe, even more significant material help caused much lesser practical result.

Nonsense. Directly from Stalin, without US aid, the Soviet Union collapses.

Of course not. It would mean food rationing in Middle Asia (may, of course, with some Tajiks and Uzbeks starving to death and some outbreaks of cannibalism) but it wouldn't mean any significant changes in the Army and Industry supply and the final result of the war.

Nonsense. Even WITH millions of tons of food from the US, Soviet civilians were starving. By 1944, it was nothing remarkable for a Soviet conscript to wear American boots, eat American rations, ride west on a train pulled by an American locomotive (two in three and half the rolling stock was imported), ride to the front in a Studebaker 6x6 truck, and ride into battle on a T-34 built with American machine tools, supported by Katyushas mounted on American trucks and full of American explosives, covered by aircraft (including P-39s or A-20s) burning American avgas.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Of course not. It would mean food rationing in Middle Asia (may, of course, with some Tajiks and Uzbeks starving to death and some outbreaks of cannibalism) but it wouldn't mean any significant changes in the Army and Industry supply and the final result of the war.

The Soviets were already on food rationing. Factory workers were the best fed civilians getting less that 1200 calories a day and often only bread made of flour mixed with sawdust as a filler. Losing Ukraine was the kiss of death for the USSR. From a statement made by Stalin 1942:
"...After the loss of Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States, the Donetsk Basin and other areas, consequently, we have much smaller area, therefore, much less people, bread, metal, plants, factories. We have lost more than 70 million people, more than 800 million tons of grain per year and more than 10 million tons of steel per year. We do not even have supremacy over the Germans either in human reserves, or in reserves of bread. To retreat further means to kill ourselves and ruin our country at the same time. ..."

"...During the war, the gross output of individual food industry sectors as a whole declined throughout the Soviet Union from 20 to 90%, or even more. This factor greatly exacerbated the situation in the matter of supplying the population with food products. ..."

The areas conquered by the Germans were the breadbasket of the Soviet Union and provided most of the food production of the USSR and a large percentage of minerals as well. That's why Putin is so desperate to conquer Ukraine now, he needs that food production as well as he needed the factories destroyed by the war. Typical of tyrants he has destroyed what he went to war to gain.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Yeah, it would. The simple change from a horse drawn logistics train to a truck based one allowed the SU to rebuild their forces much quicker. They were able to travel 5 times further in a day than a comparable German quatermaster unit.

The difference before, and after is night and day.

Not just distance in a day, but distance overall. Horse drawn traction could only operate two hundred miles from a river or rail supplied supply depot before the horses were eating more than they could carry in a wagon. That was a historical fact documented on many wars in both Asia and Europe. Every mile travelled made the ratio of feed to cargo more unfavorable.

 

[AZrailwhale]

why do some Americans think they won WWII on their own.
Simple: They're ******* idiots.

No other country could have won WW2 without the Americans. WE WERE THE KEY FACTOR. If we had allied with either Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan or both they would have won. If every other combatant had allied against us, we still would have won. We had the unique combination of manpower, distance, isolation, industrial and food production and mineral wealth to achieve victory. The cost would have been higher in blood and treasure, and it might have been a pyrrhic victory, but we still would have won even without nuclear weapons. With them it would have been a bang-on certainty.

 

[rightwinger]

No other country could have won WW2 without the Americans. WE WERE THE KEY FACTOR. If we had allied with either Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan or both they would have won. If every other combatant had allied against us, we still would have won. We had the unique combination of manpower, distance, isolation, industrial and food production and mineral wealth to achieve victory. The cost would have been higher in blood and treasure, and it might have been a pyrrhic victory, but we still would have won even without nuclear weapons. With them it would have been a bang-on certainty.

The US was untouched by the war
That made it possible to build the arsenal of Democracy and build up our own forces while supplying our allies.

It also made us an economic Superpower after the war was over

 

[AZrailwhale]

The US was untouched by the war
That made it possible to build the arsenal of Democracy and build up our own forces while supplying our allies.

It also made us an economic Superpower after the war was over

It was almost impossible for the US to be touched by the war. The only combatant that had a border in range of the USA was Canada which was so much weaker than the US that it would only have lasted a few months in a war with the USA.

 

[Deadstick]

Hollywood shows Pearl Harbor, Midway, D Day and Hiroshima

They never showed Leningrad, Stalingrad or Kursk

Well Leningrad Stalingrad and Kursk never happened if Spielberg didn't make a film about them, Kursk the largest tank battle in history, there was enemy at the gates i believe a french/Canadian production, it also looked like Hollywood bullshit.

 

[Dr Grump]

No other country could have won WW2 without the Americans. WE WERE THE KEY FACTOR. If we had allied with either Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan or both they would have won. If every other combatant had allied against us, we still would have won. We had the unique combination of manpower, distance, isolation, industrial and food production and mineral wealth to achieve victory. The cost would have been higher in blood and treasure, and it might have been a pyrrhic victory, but we still would have won even without nuclear weapons. With them it would have been a bang-on certainty.

Not my point.