International Was American involvement in world war 2 key to victory?

It was certainly important but I think THE most important thing was the shear amount of punishment the USSR was able to take and remain in the war.

What you put that down to is debatable I spose, nationalism, Stalin's degree of control or just the realisation that unlike western European nations they were fighting a war against annihilation and enslavement.
 
It was a certainly a big key, but there were multiple locks. US support and technology coupled with Russian attrition. Hitler developing a meth addiction and alienating his advisors also was a major factor.
 
tomjones said:
I know some east europeans and they believe that American involvement in world war 2 wasnt key to defeating the nazis. They strongly believe that the Nazis failure to defeat the soviets on the eastern front was key to the nazis losing the war. My personal believe is that they're both right in their own way, although I know the modern post cold war view of the war is more appreciative of the soviet people's sacrifice. I know it's a difficult question with alot of factors involved.

I would be interested to know your take on it?
Click to expand...
Ask them if they've ever heard of lend-lease...
 
The most important part of lend-lease was not the weapons, the Soviets didn't have much use for most of the tanks & aircraft we sent them since they were unsuitable for the terrain and didn't fit well into Soviet tactics & doctrine.

What really helped out the Soviets were the shipments of locomotives & rolling stock, along with boots and believe it not, buttons. Without the locomotives & railcars the logistics collapse and the Soviets would've lost Stalingrad and likely Moscow & Leningrad as well, it wouldn't be fatal since most of their industry had already been moved to the Urals but it would've extended the war a few years and cost millions more lives. Boots is another big one, the Soviets literally didn't have enough cows to make leather for boots, same with buttons, they literally ran out of them.
 
I mean, we can debate the impact of American boots on the ground (at least in Europe), but there's no way the Allies win without Lend-lease imo.
 
Mike Hagger said:
Looking back at it; we should have let germany destroy the USSR than join.

I kid I kid..
Click to expand...

🤭

Blayt7hh said:
Yes. It’s only Weirdos and Russians that try to say otherwise today. I’m not sure why it’s a point of pride that they vastly outdied everyone else
Click to expand...

You mean Europeans? 🙄 Those goofballs fucked each other up so thoroughly over the course of two wars that it practically handed the world over to America on a silver platter -- even if it was just accelerating the inevitable, because the US was already an economic and industrial superpower with a preference for non-interventionism.
 
US involvement was more important than their casualties would indicate because they are a naval power and naval warfare is much less casualty intensive than land warfare. That being said the USSR did the heavy lifting in the war against Nazi Germany just not 60 times+ as much which the casualty rate would indicate.
 
I actually have a question for anyone willing to stick around this rehashed thread, no offense TS but this convo has played out here several times.

How many people specifically, Eastern Europeans, were knowledgeable to what was happening to the folks the nazis rounded up and carted away? Also, how many of those locals actually assisted the nazis in doing those things? I think it’s maybe a lot worse than anyone wants to admit. But somehow we conveniently discuss how Americans are overly prideful in their efforts to win the war for common debate.
 
Yes and no. It's hard to ignore a nation that not only greatly helped subdue the Nazi's, but also dropped a couple of nukes that nobody else had at the time. Pretty sure the Allies were going "Thank God they're on our side", because nobody could've fought against that shit. If Japan or Germany had dropped that shit on one of their enemies, the world would look a LOT different today. That was the ultimate mic drop. Ain't nobody fucking with that.
 
Long term? No. Short term? Hell yes.

HItler was doomed the moment he decided to waste resources on surface ships when the german U-boat fleet could have strangled england in the first few years. Japan, however... yah best of luck without the US throwing its full naval weight into that fight.
 
Something that needs to be said is the US only stopped the Nazis because Hitler declared war on them because he decided for once in his life he was going to keep a promise(the ultimate irony). They did not do so out of the goodness of their heart and had no plans to do so if Hitler had not had a brain fart.

If not for said brain fart the Third Reich would probably still exist even if Operation Barbarossa failed. For all my love of the Red Army I do not believe they could have unilateraly liberated Europe. I think their advance would have stalled out in Eastern Europe somewhere.
 
ferrisjso said:
Something that needs to be said is the US only stopped the Nazis because Hitler declared war on them because he decided for once in his life he was going to keep a promise(the ultimate irony). They did not do so out of the goodness of their heart and had no plans to do so if Hitler had not had a brain fart.

If not for said brain fart the Third Reich would probably still exist even if Operation Barbarossa failed. For all my love of the Red Army I do not believe they could have unilateraly liberated Europe. I think their advance would have stalled out in Eastern Europe somewhere.
Click to expand...
Long term once the Russians got involves Germany was fucked. To many front from them to fight on, and the Russian war machine was no joke. However, the Russian Navy was a joke, and would have gotten BTFO by the Japanese navy. And honestly, outside of the US nobody was taking them on without a lot of remarkably dumb luck. The US really only did it through some luck and sheer numbers.
 
Dirt Road Soldier said:
Long term once the Russians got involves Germany was fucked. To many front from them to fight on, and the Russian war machine was no joke. However, the Russian Navy was a joke, and would have gotten BTFO by the Japanese navy. And honestly, outside of the US nobody was taking them on without a lot of remarkably dumb luck. The US really only did it through some luck and sheer numbers.
Click to expand...

The US got lucky(especially in the Pacific) but they didn't need the luck to win. Its like if the favorite in a fight has everything go perfect. They were the favorite regardless but everything went as swimmingly for them as it could have possibly went. If you repeat the war ten times the other 9 times would have been more difficult because it couldn't not be more difficult.
 
tomjones said:
I know some east europeans and they believe that American involvement in world war 2 wasnt key to defeating the nazis. They strongly believe that the Nazis failure to defeat the soviets on the eastern front was key to the nazis losing the war. My personal believe is that they're both right in their own way, although I know the modern post cold war view of the war is more appreciative of the soviet people's sacrifice. I know it's a difficult question with alot of factors involved.

I would be interested to know your take on it?
Click to expand...
Just ask yourself what American involvement did. It's clear.
 
It was.

Some Europeans don't like to admit it (LOL at that - are they embarrassed they got bailed out, or just jealous?).

The US was absolutely key to the Allied victory. The US obviously didn't do it alone though - but saying that the US's involvement didn't make a difference is just being delusional.
 
At it's peak US spending was around 35%-40% of GDP.

For comparison right now it's 2.9%.


I think it's pretty safe to say that had an impact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,238,757
Messages
55,584,359
Members
174,831
Latest member
Sammywells

Share this page

Back
Top