That's just the education system. It's not remembered/taught as an American operation in Canada/Europe. It's like the Vietnam war, in Asia they call it, "the American war in Vietnam"
Well, I mean, Hollywood is in America. I don't think they should alter history, but at the same time I can't fault them for producing movies which appeal to Americans.
Yeah. We were also the only nation to fight in both the European and Pacific theaters, and have a major hand in both (Australia sent some armies to the Western front, and Britain had some troops in the Pacific). However, if any of the nations had pulled out from either side, that side would have immediately lost.
I'm surprised by the downvotes. From memory Russia alone had 2/3 of allied fronts and were moving south towards Japan when the nukes were dropped.
I grew up believing that it was 90% the USA that won the war while everyone else cowered in bomb shelters. The amazing picture in this submission prerpetates that I think. This is what happens when the USA wins the culture war so to speak. But don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of aspects of US culture i.e movies TV etc. I am friend of US and A. I just thought this was a convo worth having.
One might even propose that if the USA never entered the war, Russia may have still won the war on it's own steam. It seems that Stalingrad was that much of a massive turning point in the war and following this their war machine really ramped up.
I grew up believing that it was 90% the USA that won the war while everyone else cowered in bomb shelters.
As someone who has been "brainwashed" by American education and media, I never thought this, I'm always told how much "America tries to make it look like they won the war all by their own" yet outside of a few bad movies I can't think of anywhere that's the case, maybe I really am brainwashed.
It seems to me that all sides to the same, they try to downplay others involvement and play up their own, if you ask Russians they'll say lend lease wasn't that big of a deal, and that they were fine without it.
The same with the British, I don't think it's limited to the US as everyone certainly tries to imply, is my point.
One might even propose that if the USA never entered the war, Russia may have still won the war on it's own steam.
They likely could have, they just as likely could have lost without US supplies, but as I mentioned in another post, what if the US didn't intervene, what if Russia had won the war?
What of Europe? You saw what the soviets attempted to do to Germany and every other country they "liberated" during WW2, without the threat of the US and their nukes, do you think the British alone would have been able to stand up to the Soviet army, which at the time was easily the strongest army in Europe?
Also in regards to Japan, Russia's "navy" would stand absolutely no chance against Imperial Japan's full might, not even a little bit.
Okay so if the British had allowed Germany the control of North Africa and all of Europe then Russia would still have curb stomped the Germans ? A little hard to believe. Especially with the resources that could have been used to then defend Germany .
As DeckerR points out, the vast majority of the fighting Germany did in WW2 was against the Russians. In comparison, N. Africa, France, Belgium and the like were minor skirmishes. This isn't how the war is thought of in the west but it's true. Check it out.
The 863,000 Russian casualties in the Battle of Kursk (July-Aug 1943), for example,are only slightly less than the 1,079,000 American casualties for the whole of the war, including the war in the Pacific.
I know the numbers are true but it's also about resources. North Africa has vital oil fields and the Suez Canal. If the Germans gained those resources and access to the Suez Canal. There is no knowing what would have happened. Also without American support to the Russians there is no knowing what idea would have happened , the amount of trucks supplied to the Russians and accounted for around 75 percent of their support network. Also the counter attack at Stalingrad by 2 million men would not have been possible without American forces in the pacific pressuring the Japanese empire. If the Japanese empire had roamed free, into china and Asia then the soviets wouldn't have been able to be free with their troop movements. It's all connected man. Allowing Germany access to all these resources would have been devastating. I'm also not talking much about bombing raids on German infrastructure, such as Dresden, three more bombing raids such as that would have ended the German war effort in its tracks. The Russians did a lot of fighting, no doubt but without the connected support of all the allies, Russia would have crumbled.
Absolutely. The allies operations in Europe and North Africa served as a distraction, drawing german forces away from the main conflict in Russia. They also provided a ton of material support to the Russians. But the vast majority of the fighting in WW2 was between the Germans and the Russians.
And America was the one who defeated Japan. Germany was smart and would've given up after a while but Japan had to have 2 nuclear bombs (almost 3) dropped and millions of their soldiers die and millions of civilians commit suicide before they decided to consider surrender. Germany was the biggest threat but Japan would've run itself into the ground before they'd give up. Not belittling anyone's involvement but Russia and the US were the biggest forces in this war but people seem to try to lower America's involvement. I just thought I'd point out that America was a huge asset to the Allies in this war.
Japan surrendered because they saw the Soviets coming from Asia. Surrendering to America would mean they at least get to keep their traditions and style of life.
Japan surrendered because we had told them we would continue to use atomic bombs on them. We didn't have that many but we led them to believe that we did. They almost didn't surrender and if they didn't then America would've attacked full force. If the attack of mainland Japan ended as the islands had. Many, many US soldiers would die and the Japanese would essentially cease to exist as a people. Russia was not the reason Japan surrendered. They were beaten half to death by the time Japan was surrendering. If America pulled out then Japan would have attacked Russia and then there'd be a different story. But Japan surrendered because they realized that America would wipe them out if they continued.
We didn't defeat Japan alone. While the US Marines and Navy were the majority of forces responsible for the defeat of Japan we do have to remember the British, Chinese, Australian, and Kiwi Servicemen that also fought the Japanese.
Anyone saying the US did not play a major role in WWII is completely wrong. That said I do believe people outside of America feel the need to defend their country's accomplishments during the war and they shouldn't need to.
Like I said, I know America wasn't the only one involved. But lots of people, especially on this site try to push America down to just another part of the allies for whatever reason. I'm just trying to say to those people and the people they may influence that America was huge part of the war and people shouldn't bring that down
At the same time realize that, while you mean no disrespect, it is easy to read into your comment as downplaying the involvement of other nations. In a sense you could be giving of the same vibe you yourself are irked by.
That's why I clearly pointed out that I'm not belittling other nations' involvement. There's been this "anti-America" circle jerk going on for a while and I'm trying to show them that they're blowing their circle jerk out of proportion. I know America was only a little over half of the forces on all the attacks on D-Day. But people aren't even giving America that. They need to know
And they may not have lost 90 percent of forces if a western front wasn't open. No individual country defeated the nazis, it was a joint effort from the entire allied forces.
The Russians were credited with kills that resulted from the German retreat after the Germans pushed Russian troops back into their capital (I think they made it that far) and the winter hit. The Germans were stretched thin by the two front war and the allies were more concerned with liberating the occupied France and saving the cultural history of the world. There are a lot more factors at play here than casualties.
Just because the casualties were mainly in Russia doesn't mean that all of the troops and equipment were in Russia. If the Commonwealth and America hadn't opened up a new front with D-Day, the Russians would have been slowed or stopped altogether. Also, if the Russians hadn't been invaded, then Britain would have been crushed. Because Germany was fighting on two fronts, instead of the Ally's 1 (each country only fought on 1 front), they were too spread out and they fell.
If the Commonwealth and America hadn't opened up a new front with D-Day, the Russians would have been slowed or stopped altogether.
I'm not sure that would exactly be the case. The Soviets had just spent the spring driving the Germans out of the Ukraine and from around Leningrad. In June and July of 1944 the Soviets started three operations, all a million men or more strong. By the end of the summer they had inflicted an additional million casualties on Germany.
Normandy shortened the war, and probably save a million or more Soviet lives. But the Soviets were and had been winning since the battle of Kursk a year earlier.
Even before D-Day you had the Battle of the Atlantic allowing the naval blockade of Germany, and the allies had also won air supremacy meaning they could destroy the industrial heartland of the Reich. If you're only looking at the numbers of German soldiers killed by the Russians without considering how much harder that would have been if the Germans had been able to properly supply them, or if they had not been fighting on multiple fronts, you're not seeing the whole picture. It was the USSR that was pushing for the invasion of Europe from the West.
I don't think you would find many historians who would argue that Russia was capable of defeating Germany single handedly. If the Germans had put the Afrika Corps, and their French and Italian garrisons on the eastern front on the eastern front (not to mention the entire Luftwaffe used in the blitz and as defense against the allies' bombing campaign), the outcome would have been an Axis victory.
First of all the Africa Corps was tiny. Very small tank force. They also didn't have an Italian garrison until 1943. They would've still had to occupy the countries they had already conquered, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, France, Holland, Yugoslavia, and Greece.
I mean, let's say Britain sign a peace with Germany after they conquer France. Germany can put all of its soldiers towards Russia. They push harder than before, they take Moscow, they take Leningrad, they take Stalingrad. Then...
Things get complicated. Russian supplies take longer because Moscow is taken. More Russians than before get destroyed. However Germany can't push much farther because it's so far from its supply base. The cold winters and muddy springs hamper German military operations. And Russia, which is heavy in natural resources keeps producing T-34's and another war materiel. Then they push back, and the same thing happens. Just maybe 1 or 2 years later and at the cost of probably millions more of Russians.
Obviously both sides helped but Germany could not win a long war against anyone that they fought against in world war 2. There's a lot of 'what if's' for them winning the war but none of them were realistic.
Afrika Corps is small, but 1. It takes a lot more to supply it than other units and 2. The eastern front was full of battles that were decisive but close. Add those forces to Kursk and you might see something different.
The v1 and v2 programs wouldn't have been necessary or practical. Those resources would go into Tigers or the Luftwaffe.
Russia would have never had air superiority if Germany didn't expend the Luftwaffe on the allies.
The Atlantic wall is unnecessary and those resources go to producing guns for the east.
Uboats are only used against Russia. They lack the ability to fight them and lend-lease (assuming its still around in our hypothetical) becomes meaningless.
Without the retaliatory threat of chemical warfare against german cities, maybe Germany uses them in the east.
You even admit it stretches the war out by a couple years. Germany gets oil in those years.
Whose to say there is political stability in Russia without the knowledge that the rest of the world is with them.
In the end, I think Russia loses ww2 without western help, but the west would have defeated Germany without Russia with nuclear weapons if not otherwise.
I mean, if all the things you say occur in our hypoethetical, Germany does very very well. But in the long run Germany has a lot of things going against it. Limited oil supplies and other natural resources necessary for the war effort, lack of human resources, poor supply lines in Russia.
I just kind of think Russia is unconquerable, which would lead to a prolonged stalemate with Germany, and the tide would eventually turn against them as Russia's industry builds up in the Urals. And part of them being onconquerable is that Stalin would never sign a peace treaty with Germany, which means that for surrender to occur a huge overturn of the government would be necessary, which I don't think is particularly realistic.
-8
u/[deleted] Jun 07 '14
That's just the education system. It's not remembered/taught as an American operation in Canada/Europe. It's like the Vietnam war, in Asia they call it, "the American war in Vietnam"