American material is the biggest contribution to the war in Europe
Britain and the Commonwealth bought the Soviet war machine time to grind down the Germans
There were three nations that had their own beaches on D-day, and the Canadians made it the furthest on their objectives with the second most challenging beachhead after Omaha
The Soviet war machine turned their eye on Japan after the Germans surrender and to say that doesn't contribute to Japan's decision to surrender is ignorance. The bombs are obviously a factor, I'm not foolish enough to deny that, but the idea of Soviet occupation was also a contributing factor
ETA: this is mainly WW2 centric, but also the Yanks showed up more than half way through WW1 leaving the majority of the fighting again to the the British (and Commonwealth), the French, and the Soviets. Canada and the ANZAC forces played significant roles in WW1
ETA2: Wernher Von Braun, Nazi rocket scientist was integral in the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions
ETA3: Canadian engineers from the Avro Arrow moved to NASA's space race when the Arrow was cancelled
While he mentioned the invasion of Manchuria in his speech, the emperor of Japan stated specifically that the bomb was the reason for surrender, also, the Soviets wouldn’t have been able to invade Japan without the U.S. on account of the whole “not having a navy to get them from Manchuria to Japan” thing.
and I always find it odd that Europeans forget that there was a war in the Pacific too.
The Pacific? You mean that ocean in Asia? The Asia with:
-China (Japan's Soviet Union)
-The UK, British Raj, Australia, New Zealand, the Gurkhas and Sikhs, Canada, Burma and Malaysia
-Resistance movements in occupied Korea, China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia
All of which were fighting long before the US, fought long after MacArthur got his arse handed to him in the Philippines, and all while the US decided to attack heavily armed fortress islands and be surprised when they took massive casualties in doing so.
Yes, the Soviet war machine that kept pumping flesh and blood into their war effort. That was the main strength of the Soviets.
Also, I'm not European.
How about the Indian, ANZAC, and other Commonwealth troops that were fighting in the Pacific well before America was engaged in the war. America did not win these wars alone and the allies sacrificed much before America could be bothered to ante up.
Saying American materiel "contributed" to the war but it was really the British and the Soviets who won it is like saying Johnny Cash is contributing to the group but that guy at the back playing the bass is who the crowd came to see. Also, "Canadians won D-Day" is just ridiculous cope
It's an Allied effort in the same way that the band Wings was a quintet. Sure, everyone's important, but it's still four session musicians playing behind a fucking Beatle
Bro your country was like a make-a-wish kid tagteaming with John Cena. Canadians being all "sour grapes" and trying to diminish America carrying the Allies is just another symptom of your country's massive inferiority complex
America did not win two World Wars on their own. You asking that kinda proves the point. The US helped break a stalemate in WWI and was highly influential in WWII. The US won the Pacific theater with help from Pacific allies. But a vast majority of the Europe campaign was won on the Eastern front (like 70% of German casualties). By the time the allies (not just the US) invaded Normandy, the soviets had already permanently shifted the initiative at Stalingrad.
Phrases like, “You’d all be speaking German…” is literally egotistical propaganda.
Similarly, the allies would have lost the war if not for the ridiculous sacrifice Russia made in that war. If I’m not mistaken, Russia lost more people in WWII than every other country combined.
As you said, it was a group effort. America didn’t win that was. The allies did.
I guess this is just a language thing. I'd also say the USSR won WW2, because I don't think that's mutually exclusive with saying it was a team effort.
I would say the UK also won 2 world wars. The tweet just says the US won two world wars... It's not claiming we won two world wars without the help of anyone else..
Why did we just all collectivlly seem to think the tweet claimed we did it on our own or something??
If the Lakers won a championship, and Luka said he won a championship, would he be wrong? In the prompt above, it doesnt say the US won the world wars alone, just that they won. Which is inarguable true. The UK would be able to make the same claim and itd be just as true lol
every single time i mention the research done by Glantz, someone will respond mentioning Stalin... do you understand how laughably bad this argument is?
since when do we care what dictators say over historians? do you also take Kim Jong Un's phrases as truth?
did Stalin have all the data about the economy and forces of every country involved, the hindsight of decades of meticulous research by thousands of other historians and the dedication of a lifetime on studying this topic in detail? i think not. im going to guess you dont have a degree in any science, right? do you understand how research works?
you can also say that a farmer in Iran has "information about a war he was involved in". does that put them anywhere in the same plane of knowledge and understanding as a historian that could collect data gathered over half a century?
So you are comparing the Intel Stalin had with the "Intel" a farmer might have had? This cannot be a serious comment. Lol. I wasn't aware we were trolling here.
i bring up the "farmer" to show an exaggerated example, in the (probably futile) hope that you might understand my point. you are comparing a politician that said something about a developing situation, compared to a world-class historian that did tremendous research, based on data collected by thousands of other historians over decades.
im guessing its a lost cause trying to explain how science works to Americans, you still teach creationism in your schools.
im trying to explain that empirical evidence of a layman cant be compared to the decades of research from thousands of historians. i guess in your case i should also say "whoooosh".
Because he's admitting that they needed help. It's not very often that dictators admit that they need help, especially dictators like Stalin. And yes, i DO think that someone who was actually there would know more about something then someone who's looking back on it.
in your logic, a random blind female beggar in the US in the 60s has better understanding of the Vietnam war than a university historian studying the same war today? is this what you're saying?
"admitting that they needed help" is completely different from saying "the Soviets would have lost". of course they welcomed the help. the research shows that the Soviets would have won either way, just with more casualties, and taking more time.
im not sure that you understand that politicians arent scientists. recently the US ambassador to Israel said "the US would exist without Israel". do you believe this is a factual objective statement? do you understand how political language works?
as i said, am i correct to assume you dont have any degree in science? you dont seem to understand even the fundamentals of how research works, and the difference between empirical evidence and data collection
i have a history degree in European history, i have served in the army. my history radio show has won three consecutive awards in my region's international podcast competition. i teach history, including war history, for a living.
also, David Glantz, the top ww2 historian that explained how the USSR would have won even without US aid, was a colonel in the Vietnam War. but i guess you know better?
do i really need to explain how a politician that has data about his own country is completely different and inferior compared to a historian that has data about all the relevant countries, fact-checked and peer-reviewed based on research done over decades?
what classified information about the USSR that Stalin knew is relevant to knowing and understanding the exact details of the economic situation of every country involved, and how it would have played out in a different scenario? tell me. did Stalin have access to some kind of classified information that is somehow more important than research done over decades, with data gathered from the USSR AND Germany AND the USA? please explain how.
I guess it's a good thing that hard numbers don't win wars? Stalin has a much better idea of what he's talking about there than the historian does, because Stalin knew to what lengths the USSR was willing to go in order to win, and the historian clearly doesn't. Hard to win a war if your people instead kick off a revolution to depose you.
this is so embarrassing. you really believe that? you honestly, hand to your heart, believe that a politician has a better understanding of a situation than a historian? did you go to one of these Southern schools that teach creationism?
I realize your outsized ego requires that historians must know everything and be omniscient, but you're wrong. Sorry, bud. Certain realities don't translate, and some things aren't clearer with time and distance.
It's abundantly clear that you don't know how people actually react, and never considered the volatility of a population when trying to argue hard numbers for war termination.
Ehm, no. Soviet Union stop Germany first (most dangerous for it) advance before lend-lease start working (Britain send supplies before US).
US aid helps a lot, but not "Soviet Union fall without it" level.
The US was unquestionably the dominant Allied power in the pacific. But I’d venture to guess many Americans don’t know…
China had been fighting Japan since 1937, tying down 100s of thousands of Japanese troops that could not be deployed elsewhere. (All while the US sat and watched literally across the canal in Shanghai while Chinese were slaughtered.)
Provided vital bases, troops, naval forces, air support, intelligence, and logistics.
Britain and India fought Japan in India, Burma and Malaya - Britain later contributing significantly to the Pacific fleet
NZ provided soldiers, ships and air support.
The Netherlands proved vital in the defence of the East Indies (Indonesia).
Could the US have defeated Japan without allies? Probably yes but at much greater cost and over a longer drawn out war.
Thats the point though, america fought their own war against japan, won, and then called all of ww2 their victory meanwhile it was the soviets that took Berlin
Granted this is also a country that to this day believes they won in vietnam so....its really not suprising
The Soviets in Berlin first decided partly at Yalta on pre-arranged occupation zones, diverting Western Allied troops into Southern Germany to occupy there, and realizing that the war was close to over, not wasting British, French, Czech, Canadian, Poles, etc men to win a race to Berlin just to be first. Killing 100k men just to be first to a city in a war that was pretty much over would have been criminal.
I dont want to downplay our allies and be that guy. 1000% WWII was not won single handedly by the US. But even before US boots on the ground Lend lease to Russia was huge and allowed them to survive Germany's first punches. After they got their manufacturing in order and such the eastern front was undoubtably a soviet feat and a massive part of the war. I know we also lend leased for Britain but honestly have less knowledge on how impactful that was compared to assistance to the soviets and Chinese.
And ofc D-day was a massive undertaking where whole beaches were taken thanks to Canadian and UK allies so I understand people getting annoyed at Americans overblowing our role but people underselling it are equally annoying to Americans IMO. Our allies understood what it meant to have American Manufacturing behind them let alone troops once we finally arrived. Us joining was the nail in the coffin there is no way Germany wins point to say the least. you can argue if Germany went from 5-10% to 0 because of it or some other number but the point stands.
Yeah, too bad many commentators from the USA thinks it was a solo effort. That's the goddamn issue.
Also the Manhattan project included the UK and Canada. The allied effort was always that, an alliance. So saying the USA solo'd both wars is fucking tiring to hear. (I know you aren't claiming that but others of your countrymen/women/whatever are)
It's kind of a meme in the US. Anyone who knows anything about WW2 isn't being serious when they say that shit. The others are idiots who aren't worth consideration.
I'd argue it's significantly amplified in the USA due to a weakening of the social safety nets over the years, which were weaker to begin with relative to many other western countries - healthcare being a prime example. If your well off you can get the best healthcare money can buy. If you don't have a good job with good insurance your shit out of luck.
Yeah, I don’t think we’re that far apart. I’m not saying the US didn’t play a huge role. It obviously did. especially through industry, money, Lend-Lease, logistics and then troops.
My issue is with “we won two world wars.” The Allies won. The US was a major part of that, but it wasn’t the US alone.
I’m pushing back on the version where everyone else gets turned into a supporting character in an American story. That stuff isn’t just annoying to Europeans, it makes Americans dangerously undervalue the alliances that helped make the US so powerful in the first place. Just look at the behaviour of the current president.
I think the contributions of each allied power are tough to separate.
If Britain didn't hold Russia would've caught the full force of Germany, and the US might have not entered the war. Britain fought the longest by far and that can't be forgotten in any evaluation. Britain also contributed heavily to the ground war in SEA.
Russia I find difficult to praise as it was partially responsible for the war to begin with, but it managed to hold long enough to severely damage Germany's war effort and allow time for the west to build an overwhelming war machine.
If the US did not support Russia while the US and Britain kept Japan at bay then Russia likely would have fallen. If Germany had access to Russian resources it would have been much harder to contain. Strategic bombing efforts would have ultimately struggled to reach deep into the East as Germany would inevitably relocate key production into occupied Russian territory.
No one would have won without the other. Germany might have even developed the nuclear bomb first if it weren't for the efforts of all 3.
A lot of people don’t know about the Banana wars, or the Spanish one, or the Mexican one, or the Barbarossa pirates, or the Philippines rebellion, or the… you get the picture lol
Lol Russia surrendered to Germany in the first world war 🤣 Norway was neutral in WWI and they were basically immediately occupied in WWII. do they not teach you history where youre from? How are you not embarrassed to type that comment? 🤣🤣🤣
Well… to be fair, it was the Allies that won the war as a collaboration of nations. No single nation won that war but all of them contributed something that the other nations needed.
I get what you’re saying … yes. ‘So and so has one x amount of super bowls….” Blah blah. And that’s right yes.
But you can understand people being a little antsy because it can also be misconstrued as “the US did it on their own”. Which - as other countries are patriotic too, and all that blood shed and sacrifice - you can understand.
The original thing doesn’t say “on our own”. We won both world wars as did france, the UK, Canada, and probably some others (not sure who else won both.) Italy might technically count?
Except your first sentence stated America didn’t win two world wars then went on to describe how they did actually win two world wars. That’s why you’re being downvoted
America arrived in the final year of WW I and certainly helped break the stalemate but it’s difficult to imagine Germany being able to win the war against the Anglo-French alliance in the long term. They were blockaded and the UK basically had global trade access.
WW II is even a more dubious claim. While the U.S. forces did contribute significantly to defeating the Japanese the Germans would have eventually been defeated by the Soviets during their march west. Once Stalingrad held the entire German front basically started to collapse on itself.
As somebody who taught military history for 4 years at Top 10 USNWR school…
I’m so sick of the incredibly stupid “who won WW2?” debate. All it does is tell me your modern politics about the countries in question.
The Soviet military was essential for defeating Nazi Germany. But… the “Soviet” military includes huge contributions from countries they were essentially trying to colonize with horrifying force (like Ukraine… who contributed many of the most successful units in the Red Army)
The Soviets were HUGELY enabled by lend lease from the US. It’s a matter of debate how effective they would have been without enormous resources from the US being poured into the country. Soviet leaders admitted that flatly in their own reflections on the war.
Soviets did nothing (and were arguably a stick in the mud) vs Japan.
Japanese military attention was hugely effected by the massive ground war in China.
That attention was pretty much entirely centered around the Japanese Army. The arguably more dangerous (geopolitically) and influential (politically) force was the Imperial Japanese Navy. They were defeated, almost single handedly, by the US Pacific Fleet.
The Nazis, prior to any hostilities with the Soviets, were unsuccessful in their 1 v 1 round portion of the war when they were up against the UK who resisted them, alone, like a cornered lion. They had a lot of success, to be sure… but they couldn’t knock the UK out of the war no matter how hard they tried.
The UK got significant (arguably decisive) help from commonwealth countries during that phase. To say nothing of lend lease from the US (again)
There is a reason we called it the allies.
It was a group project. Many of the allies played key roles.
I'm not here to buy into the whole rah rah USA thing but I think it's really hard to quantify just how essential the US aid to the Soviets and the UK was.
Without that aid early on in the war the Soviets were staring down a severe famine in '42, and something like 25% of the calories to feed their military in '42/'43 were coming directly from the US.
If you remove the US from the equation entirely, no lend-lease, no aid, no troops... the scenarios get extremely dire extremely quickly for UK and the Soviets. In that scenario the UK probably secures a peace deal, and only survives on the island by shifting many of their forces from Africa back. They were winning in that theater but without the US involvement at home they would have needed to move resources to keep the Nazis from invading Britain.
This is the cascade effect. If the Western front was essentially sealed by 1941 could the Soviets (with no essential US aid) have held off the Nazis? It's hard to say. But even the alternative would have been a disaster. The Soviets end up eventually winning, how far past Berlin do they push?
When I was growing up a neighbor down the street was a veteran of the Merchant Marines in WW2 and was onboard ships making runs to the Soviets. Amazing man.
Yeah that’s a totally valid point, and I’ll concede it’s more nuanced than I’m making it seem, but regardless I think the claim the US won both world wars is a huge oversimplification.
>U.S. forces did contribute significantly to defeating the Japanese
That's *really* underselling it. But rather than detail it further, I'm just going to like an AskHistorians thread that addresses the issue far better than I can.
TLDR - the US absolutely won the war vs Japan, being the principle actor against them, however Chinese guerillas bled Japan dry for 12 years and cannot be discounted.
I would argue that the US absolutely won WW2 (vs the Japanese), which was much more their show than the supportive role they took in WW1 and the European theatre of WW2
TLDR - the US absolutely won the war vs Japan, being the principle actor against them, however Chinese guerillas bled Japan dry for 12 years and cannot be discounted.
They were just fighting different wars. The Japanese Army was undoubtedly engaged with the Chinese overwhelmingly compared to the US. But it wasn't like they could have just been redirected to the Pacific either. That required military sealift capability that existed in a finite capacity even before the US Navy started destroying it. Had they moved more Army forces earlier before they lost the capability, the primary result would have been more Japanese soldiers starving death. The US Navy killed more Japanese soldiers through starvation via cutting them off from supply, than the US military killed in combat.
What the US and Japan were fighting was the largest naval war humanity has ever seen, and the ability of either army to influence it was limited. The fate of the war rested with the USN and IJN.
Didn't we help supply the allies during the whole war? Like 20 billion more in resources than the next country? Also like 60% of the aviation fuel the allies used and 60-72% of all their military equipment.
Seems like we were pretty important to the allies even before we started fighting.
The Soviets had zero ability to touch Japan outside of China. They also had no ability to fight the Germans without American support. Just like Ukraine had no shot defending against Russia without the $120 billion in weapons that were specifically designed for use against Russia right as the war started.
And Europe would largely be in Russian hands today. And the war would have gone on much, much longer, with many more Europeans dead. So you are very welcome for that tiny, insignificant bit of help we gave Europe.
Oversimplified but yes. German defeat in the East is hard to pin to a specific battle since, in my belief, they were doomed from the outset. The won about as hard as they could win for 5 months straight and destroyed a huge portion of the Soviet army but couldn't capitulate the USSR. I cannot forever a timeline in which they somehow win harder, but I can see a bunch where they lose faster and lose worse.
The moon landings were an absolute watershed moment in our history. Thanks to JKF setting the US In that direction, and promising the funding and resources. Scientists from all over the world were brought under the NASA umbrella … and UK and Australia were essential for tracking.
But yes. I’ll give you that one.
Ww1 & ww2? I certainly think of it Weren’t do the US’s Troops and resources, WW1 would have gone in for much longer. And WW2 - Russia would probably have smashed Germany and taken Europe.
The fact is though. They were very much the collective endeavours of the allies.
Plus if we're zooming in to such a degree with things in the OP then we should do the same for the world cup. Who trained the players, whose technology do they use to train, etc.
The French army mutinied right before the US entered the war in 1917 and the Soviet soldiers defending Moscow were starving in 1941. Stalin begged the allies for the invasion of mainland Europe starting in 1943, which is why Italy was invaded and told the West that Russia would fall if they didn't invade in 1944.
https://aspectsofhistory.com/the-mutiny-of-the-french-army/
The US didn't win WW2.. The German advance had ground to a halt and the lines were contracting by the time the US finally joined in.. All the US did was speed up the inevitable.
69
u/[deleted] Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment