The case for the US as the clear cut dominant power that won WWII

[C-Mag]

Many historians, and mere fans of history downplay the US contributions to the Allied victory over the Axis forces. Some 'experts' have even said the US didn't really fight the war, that none of our military leaders would be ranked in the top 10 of Generals in the war. I find this to be absurd. My bullet points below.

1. No other nation fought on such a wide breadth of the global conflict as the Americans (UK was close)

2. The US innovated new ways of war on air, sea and land.

3. The US had the higest kill to loss ratio of any nation by far.

4. The US perfected combined arms warfare.

5. The US dominated the oceans around the world.

6. The US ran the campaigns in Europe and the Pacific. Those campaigns were much more effective than the Eastern front, Africa, or Battle of France.

7. The US was the only nation that could sustain war and supply it's allies with little to no aid from anyone else.

IMO, it's not even close who won WWII. Without the US in WWII it would be a very different world.

[DBTrek]

Russia thinks you're full of shit.

[Speaker to Animals]

Russia lost phase three of the hundred year war, though.

Also true that America "won" with a mortal wound to which we have yet succumbed but linger on as walking dead men.

I think it a mistake to look at the 20th century as a series of disconnected wars. It was one big war. Capitalism/globalism won and then proceeded to dismantle western civilization.

[Hastur]

WWII was more or less a draw. Totalitarians got China and Eastern Europe. Democratic capitalism got Japan, Italy and 3/4 of Germany. The Cold War was the desicive conflict and was won by the US and it’s allies.

[Speaker to Animals]

WWII was more or less a draw. Totalitarians got China and Eastern Europe. Democratic capitalism got Japan, Italy and 3/4 of Germany. The Cold War was the desicive conflict and was won by the US and it’s allies.

Yep.

[C-Mag]

Russia thinks you're full of shit.

Recklessly spending lives to gain ground does not make your leaders or generals great. Relying on other allies for food, weapons and vehicles to wage war puts you in 2nd class.

[Otern]

7. The US was the only nation that could sustain war and supply it's allies with little to no aid from anyone else.

IMO, it's not even close who won WWII. Without the US in WWII it would be a very different world.

Looks like I'll have to address all those points, but it will take time, so for now, just the last one.

And that one is mostly true. The US was the only nation to sustain war AND supply its allies in the scale they did. The US was the definite winner, no doubt, they had no losses to infrastructure, and WW2 helped them turn into a superpower not matched by anyone.

But both Britain and the Soviet Union could sustain the war. It would've taken its toll, and especially Britain would be in a much weaker military position, while the Soviet Union would be in a worse logistical situation.

The food imports to the Soviet Union is probably one of the most overlooked aspect, but it was definitely the most important help the US sent to them. Trucks were the second most important thing, important, but nowhere near as important as the food.

But, even without the food imports, the Soviet Union would've defeated Germany. Most of their lend lease materiel came after 1943. Very little came in 1941-1942, when it was most needed. 57% came in the last two years of the war. It definitely saved a lot of Soviet lives, and it did make their war somewhat "easier", but it was not the deciding factor. Keep in mind, the Soviets kept the German prisoners of war fed during the war, even at pretty bleak points. Less food, could mean the Soviet Union would do as Germany, and simply not feed their prisoners.

Britain would be in a worse situation. But even they could manage the submarine threat, and they did manage to get food imports and important resources shipped in from their colonies. The destroyers sent as lend lease helped, and so did the trucks, and the US was definitely crucial for the success of D-day, but Britain wouldn't have been invaded and occupied by Nazi Germany, even without US help. They just wouldn't be able to launch an invasion on mainland Europe.

[Hastur]

Stalin often publicly played down the importance of Lend Lease after the war. That should come as no surprise, him wanting to take full credit for defeating Nazi Germany.

Some other opinions

I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin's views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so.

Today [1963] some say the Allies didn't really help us… But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.

The early aid from Brittain to Russia was very important. For example, they sent a lot of tanks to replace the early losses for the Red Army that served as a stop gap before Russia could replace them with their own tanks. In the battle of Moscow, 30-40% of the Russian tanks were British lend-lease.

[C-Mag]

Good Post Otern

Remember too the US had to defend far more territory than either England or Russia. The Eastern Front was 1800 miles, about the same distance from Maine to Key West Florida, but then the US had the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, Hawaii and the Phillipines. The US would engage the enemy in all these areas. The intensity of the East Front cannot be overstated, that's not what I'm saying. But the Soviets in particular could concentrate on that 1800 miles. For the US and the UK that wasn't the case.

The UK and Soviets could sustain themselves, but not at the same level and that would have changed the nature of the war. The UK gave lend lease to the Soviets as well. The Soviets stopped the Krauts in 42, but they were wrecked. While our Lend Lease increased through the war, how would the Soviets have recovered so quickly alone ? They would not have.

Food as you note is underestimated. The Soviets lost their bread basket in 41. But a host of other basic needs really kept the Red Army in the field. 15 Million pairs of boots, plus blankets and bandages. The Soviets could not even produce high enough octane fuel for aircraft, let alone the aluminum to make aircraft. Without US Aid, the Soviets would have been an army on foot or horse, with no air force and no trains to move material.

The UK would have been in poor shape as well as you note. The pressure that would have been put on the Royal Navy would have been enormous as it had to go to the Commonwealth nations for these supplies.

The key lend lease came early. It kept the UK and the USSR in the field as armies that could challenge Germany.


Russian History Professor explains some of it here
https://www.rbth.com/business/2015/05/0 ... 45879.html

[Hwen Hoshino]

Russia lost phase three of the hundred year war, though.

Also true that America "won" with a mortal wound to which we have yet succumbed but linger on as walking dead men.

I think it a mistake to look at the 20th century as a series of disconnected wars. It was one big war. Capitalism/globalism won and then proceeded to dismantle western civilization.

How could capitalism has won if war requires restricting markets and wasting productive workers?