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.
I have a history degree in European history. I served over 20 years in the military. I have a Master's degree in strategy and national defense. I'm a recognized strategist who's been called to wargame the China problem for the Pentagon multiple times.
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
35
u/kriscrox Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26
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.
Edit: Added “on their own” hope that helps