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

[Deorum]

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.

The resentment is really odd, but whatever. Snipping Europe's balls, putting it under a collective security blanket, overseeing its constituent countries made all but economically co-dependent, opening its own markets for Europa to export its back to affluence during the post-war rebuilding process and ushering in what has been about the longest era of both sustained peace and prosperity in the continent's history is probably America's greatest post-1945 foreign policy achievement -- although there haven't been too many.

 

[Poon Goon]

solid american self congratulatory thread.

 

[Blayt7hh]

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.

Well they might have known that they weee killing Jews, but there is no way that they could have known the full extent of what was happening. Those horrors were discovered by Americans when we liberated the camps.

 

[Anewt]

Yeah. Imo it's undeniable when you look at the axis powers.

But the same can be said for many nations that don't get the props they deserve imo

 

[Siver!]

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?

For me, this question is backwards.

What did American isolationism cost the Western world during WW2?

The answer is a fucking enormous amount, as Nazi Germany probably never had the balls to take on the entire Northern continent if America hadn't suffered the Great Depression and shrank in on itself like a cock in cold water.

America was very important, but also very late to the party. In those terms, America cannot claim to have anything like the importance of the Soviets.

While America ran cold-then-hot, the Soviets committed bodies to the cause - not very well in terms of sheer cost-to-life, but at least they recognized the true enemy.

Let us hope the USA does not pull the same sad stunt in the coming years should there be further conflict in Europe.

 

[Anewt]

Well they might have known that they weee killing Jews, but there is no way that they could have known the full extent of what was happening. Those horrors were discovered by Americans when we liberated the camps.

Even amongst the Germans themselves there was very little open paperwork/ orders apparently.

Although of course you'd destroy that stuff. But if your out was saying it was ordered by higher ups. One would assume a few records would've survived.

Been a long time since I read about it though

 

[avenue94]

I'm not a historian but it's hard for me to imagine an allied victory without the Americans support.

That's one of the wrinkles here, it depends on what you consider victory. The Nazis would never have consolidated control of Europe like they imagined, and Russia was going to stay in the war no matter how much territory it lost.

Britain also would never fall like Germany envisaged.

But if not for Japan, would Germany have invaded ussr when they did, or would they have kept pushing west, first?

Pretty clearly yes based on everything we know

Would Britain have been able to survive without the USA? Or would the Nazi submarine fleet have starved them out of the war?

Yes they would have survived. The uboats never came close to succeeding, I believe they sunk enough shipping to outpace new ships only 2 or 3 months of the entire war.

 

[avenue94]

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.

Most Germans and the folks they occupied knew. You can't hide moving hundreds of thousands, millions of people, nor the infrastructure required to kill that many people. There's also the people sound, imagine a killing camp with 100 or 200 personal to man it, that's instantly thousands of relatives who know something, if not the outright truth.

 

[avenue94]

The answer is a fucking enormous amount, as Nazi Germany probably never had the balls to take on the entire Northern continent if America hadn't suffered the Great Depression and shrank in on itself like a cock in cold water.

They would have. There is this idea that Hitler and the Wehrmacht only picked a war because X or Y, and the truth is it was integral to both worldviews (the army and the Nazi party). It's like asking would the South have won the Civil War if they had earlier allowed slaves to enlist or contribute to the war effort.

I'm big on deterrence working between countries, but Nazi Germany is a pretty good example of the rare undeterrable country.

Even amongst the Germans themselves there was very little open paperwork/ orders apparently.

Although of course you'd destroy that stuff. But if your out was saying it was ordered by higher ups. One would assume a few records would've survived.

Been a long time since I read about it though

There may not be existing records of Hitler saying "Kill the Jews by doing X or Y," but there are plenty of orders that amount to kill this population or that population at an enormous scale.

 

[Helden]

Key? No. A contributing factor? For sure.

If I was to name one single event that probably swung the outcome in our favour, it'd be Hitler deciding to open a second front against USSR while still at war with western Europe.

 

[ferrisjso]

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.

He didn't decice to waste resources on surface ships. No new surface vessels were built during the war everything was just the completion of pre war projects and most of those were cancelled. Plan Z was cancelled. After Bismarck got sunk I think Hitler was going to scrap the entire surface navy and while he didn't do that he did just about everything short of that.

The submarine fleet was the 1st/nearly only priority for the navy it was 3rd priority in the German military behind the army and lufwaffe. The German surface fleet might as well have been space force for budgeting purposes.

 

[Siver!]

They would have. There is this idea that Hitler and the Wehrmacht only picked a war because X or Y, and the truth is it was integral to both worldviews (the army and the Nazi party). It's like asking would the South have won the Civil War if they had earlier allowed slaves to enlist or contribute to the war effort.

That's just fundamentally wrong.

America had been isolationist since WW1, that's almost 2 decades before WW2 broke out.

Nazi Germany were confident USA wouldn't want to get involved. Hitler didn't think highly of the US, but why would he?

Germany basically defeated Britain during this period, it defeated France, and I've said on here before, the only reason Britain survived was because of a German pivot towards Russia months before America got involved. Operation Barbarossa let Britain off the hook.

I will accept that we all are taught different versions of history, as someone from Europe tried to claim Britain would have survived anyway (absolutely no chance), but that's the basic timeline of events.

If the United States had sided with Britain and France from the off, Nazi Germany couldn't have poured West to begin with. There's just no way at all.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

That's one of the wrinkles here, it depends on what you consider victory. The Nazis would never have consolidated control of Europe like they imagined, and Russia was going to stay in the war no matter how much territory it lost.

Britain also would never fall like Germany envisaged.


Pretty clearly yes based on everything we know

Yes they would have survived. The uboats never came close to succeeding, I believe they sunk enough shipping to outpace new ships only 2 or 3 months of the entire war.

Because the USA relentlessly continued to trade with the UK. Yes they had enough shipping to continue but losing ships to hostile actions is not the same as losing ships to storms. If they had decided too stop due to the losses they were suffering, what then?

 

[Siver!]

Key? No. A contributing factor? For sure.

If I was to name one single event that probably swung the outcome in our favour, it'd be Hitler deciding to open a second front against USSR while still at war with western Europe.

This.

 

[milliniar]

What the US did in the Pacific is probably a bigger contribution to winning the war.
Especially combat wise

 

[shunyata]

Oh boy this is always fun

"Grabs popcorn"

This is the boring but true answer:

Germany was defeated by running out of gasoline and losing oilfields in North Africa, then losing ground on the Western and Eastern fronts starting with failing at Kursk in the summer of 43 then losing Normandy in 44. Fossil fuels resource advantages and logistics advantages enjoyed by America were a key part in US victories in Europe as well as the Pacific theatre.

This resource/logistics advantage was a big part of why America could fuel two fronts on opposite sides of the globe while Germany failed to defend two fronts on their homeland.

Germany fell when advances on both the Eastern and Western fronts lead to their downfall and to assume either front could have done the job without the other leaves out the fact that the loss of life would have been far more massive without splitting the gas starved Nazi army and crushing it from both sides.

But let's not forget that Stalin was an ally of Hitler until Adolf double crossed Russia and broke their treaty, and the US was playing isolationist tango until Japan did us dirty. So both America and Russia were tacitly letting Europe burn (not counting all our aid to the UK) under fascist expansion until our sovereignty was violated.


That being said, Truman could have nuked Berlin.

 

[shunyata]

For me, this question is backwards.

What did American isolationism cost the Western world during WW2?

The answer is a fucking enormous amount, as Nazi Germany probably never had the balls to take on the entire Northern continent if America hadn't suffered the Great Depression and shrank in on itself like a cock in cold water.

America was very important, but also very late to the party. In those terms, America cannot claim to have anything like the importance of the Soviets.

Let us hope the USA does not pull the same sad stunt in the coming years should there be further conflict in Europe.

That's fuckin heavy, and a real question worth exploring.

It's the origin of Churchill's saying, "You can always count on America to do the right thing. After they've tried literally everything else."

"While America ran cold-then-hot, the Soviets committed bodies to the cause - not very well in terms of sheer cost-to-life, but at least they recognized the true enemy."

But they didn't recognize shit until Germany invaded Russian soil. Russian involvement was not a proactive choice, but a response to invasion.

 

[avenue94]

That's just fundamentally wrong.

America had been isolationist since WW1, that's almost 2 decades before WW2 broke out.

Nazi Germany were confident USA wouldn't want to get involved. Hitler didn't think highly of the US, but why would he?

Germany literally declared war against the US when it had no obligation to do so.

Germany basically defeated Britain during this period, it defeated France, and I've said on here before, the only reason Britain survived was because of a German pivot towards Russia months before America got involved. Operation Barbarossa let Britain off the hook.

This is fundamentally inaccurate. There is no scenario where Germany is able to knock Britain out of the war militarily or politically. They failed to even attack most convoys making it to the UK, and they never had close to the capabilities to invade the UK.

Just to make this very clear. 90 percent of convoys to the UK were never attacked, and over all less than 1 percent of merchants to the UK were sunk.

I will accept that we all are taught different versions of history, as someone from Europe tried to claim Britain would have survived anyway (absolutely no chance), but that's the basic timeline of events.

How exactly do you think an invasion of the British isles would have unfolded?

Because the USA relentlessly continued to trade with the UK. Yes they had enough shipping to continue but losing ships to hostile actions is not the same as losing ships to storms. If they had decided too stop due to the losses they were suffering, what then?

Why would the US have stopped sending shipping to a country? Unrestricted submarine warfare is very illegal.

The submarine fleet was the 1st/nearly only priority for the navy it was 3rd priority in the German military behind the army and lufwaffe. The German surface fleet might as well have been space force for budgeting purposes.

People really need to understand that no amount of more submarine building was going to win the Battle of the Atlantic. Literally 90 percent of German submariners were killed or captured during the war.

 

[avenue94]

What the US did in the Pacific is probably a bigger contribution to winning the war.
Especially combat wise

How so?

But they didn't recognize shit until Germany invaded Russian soil. Russian involvement was not a proactive choice, but a response to invasion.

True, but it's equally true that sooner or later one of those two continental powers was going to invade the other. Just a mater of when, and both sides knew it.

 

[TheGreatA]

Without the US, I think we'd still be at war.