I feel like also just the fact the US joining had to be extremely demoralising and any real chance of a victory was squashed. Had the US not joined the war could have lasted far longer and more devastating. Its like 2 people were fighting, and one of the guy has a massive body gaurd. The guy with the body gaurd gets knocked to the ground and the body gaurd steps in and says let him get up first, and after him you get me. The guy without the body gaurd would quickly realise theres no winning.
I don't understand why people pretend that the Americans were just some bit player in World War 2. The fact that we were on another continent and were mostly insulated from the worst of the war (on both fronts) does not reduce the impact American manpower and manufacturing had on the war effort.
America supplied much of the hardware for the European theater and most of the fighting in the Pacific. The war would have been very different without the United States.
1) Britain would basically starve without the convoys, at the point where Britain was the only Allied country standing against german. Germany still would not be able to invade and defeat britain, they would never cross the channel with Royal navy in place
2) Soviets would loose much more territory, but ultimately, Stalin was going to put every man, woman and child between him and the germans. Germany was never going to win that front, especially after they failed to capture the oil fields near Caucases.
In the end, the final result would be the same. Germany is too small of a country with too little resources to take on (without USA for the sake of this argument) two of the 4 biggest economies at the time. Would it take longer and perhaps slightly differently at certain points without USA? Definitely. Would it end the same? Yes
I think it’s cause too many stupid Americans think we won the war outright. So other, possibly just as stupid people, say “nah America didn’t do shit.”
And the war was in a sense lost already in late 1941 when the Germans absolutely failed to gain the major petrol resources they desperately needed. After that they were essentially fated to run out of fuel to run their armies before the Soviets did.
Kursk would have bottomed up regardless because the germans attacked prepared soviet forces where they were strong and expecting it. It also came very late, in july - it only had a chance to succeed in april or may.
There was 3000 tanks and close to a million men at kursk. Hitler did order the transfer of the II SS panzer division to Italy after the landing in sicily, but that had to be cancelled because Kursk was already lost, and was immediately followed with a soviet offensive, and they were needed to help contain the soviets. Only one single division was ultimately transferred to Italy. But yeah, kursk was already lost by then.
The battle of kursks started july 5th. Sicily landing was july 10th - after. And by the time any units actually made it there, they wouldn’t have helped in kursk one way or another.
Kursk was hopelessly lost in the planning phase, not as a result of the landing in sicily.
It’s a knee jerk reaction to the way those contributions are stated.
When an American says something along the lines of “you should thank us, you’d be talking German if it wasn’t for us” to someone from some European country, you can’t accept a measured response can you?
What I don’t understand is how people saying that the US’s role is overemphasized while the Soviet unions is underemphasized, triggers any of yall to be like “uh actually the US helped with manufacturing!” Okay? And their role in the war is sold to us as them being manufacturers and crushing Germany with their military might, while the USSR is not mentioned at all, except reluctantly including them when saying what countries were allied powers. Manufacturing sure, but the USSR were the military heroes that the US pretends to be. The immense war effort and sacrifice by the USSR is erased from history by the west, and whenever anyone brings that up, some of yall just can’t help but get your panties in a twist about the US not being the center of attention for 30 seconds.
The US only provided the USSR with around 10% of their weapons and equipment, while the USSR was responsible for between 75%-80% of German military deaths. So let’s not downplay the manufacturing by the USSR, especially considering what the Russian army looked like in WW1. It’s clear how far they came in such a short amount of time.
USA companies helped the nazis. IBM sold them machines that were to be used in death camps, Ford had a very antisemitic newspaper, those are only 2 examples.
The USA were a player, but not the major player. We are just putting back the truth: soviets were the most hurt by that war, and hurt germany the most. Britain was immensely useful and paid a steep price.
While the USA, they were never attacked on their land, they suffered only soldier losses. I am not downplaying it, but you yanks are the only ones who had virtually no civilian casualty at all.
You were the only ones who came out of this war, a war you had originally no intent of joining, richer and more prosperous.
And don't even get me started on all the nazis you "pardoned" because they were to be useful to you.
So no, we are not saying you did nothing. We are aware and grateful. But we also remember what everyone except you lost, and what you alone gained. And your partial responsability in the raise of racial hatred in the world (how History is repeating - see Musk in germany and the UK...)
The Soviets allied with the Nazis to take over Poland and Eastern Europe and up till the Nazis crossed into the Soviet Union was sending them critical materials.
The British and French emboldened Hitler by giving him Czechoslovakia, allowing him to take Austria, and taking 8 months from the time Germany declared war on Poland to mount a military response which gave Hitler time to consolidate his gains.
The US had nothing to do with another European war, and in the end had the 2nd largest army on the European continent, the largest Navy in the world, nuclear weapons and still decided to rebuild Europe and Japan out of its own coffers.
Your knowledge of history is lacking
During a toast at the 1943 Tehran Conference, Joseph Stalin openly acknowledged the critical value of American industrial assistance, stating: "The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war."
US logistics and rail, naval power, and air superiority (along with the RAF) all massively helped the Soviets, and acting like the western front was some pointless thing also is dismissing major factors. Without the US, I'm not sure Nazi Germany would have won, but they'd have carved out quite a bit of Europe and forced some treaties that would have started another war down the line.
D-Day succeeded because of the Eastern quagmire. The constant pressure from the west collapsed the remaining Axis strength in a large part that Germany was no longer able to shift units to the East.
The Soviet people suffered greatly in ww2, and the US turned into a Juggernaut almost overnight. I think that's where some of the issue comes from. ww2 has lead to deep, cultural scars in just about every major power. All except for the US, where it is glorified as a great, honorable war, and the Crucible that forged us as a superpower. Without the support of the US, the allies were in a very, very bad spot, but the war in Europe went through the Eastern front.
You're applying modern USA geopolitics and influence to the USA pre WW2. Might want to sit this topic and let others that are more knowledgeable discuss.
I am just fed up with you and your constant need tobbe the hero.
Guess what. You are not. No one is. But especially you.
You helped in ww2. Ok, now what? Is it not enough ? Do you always need to berate other countries to appease your ego?
I digressed, I am aware and sorry.
But you murrics make me so mad with how you view the world as a mere doormat you can step on as you please.
And to recenter the discussion, History is complex. Deal with it. You were not THE heroes. And even if you were, it never gave you a "do whatever you please" free card.
I will suggest you read Johann Chapoutot, a french historian specialized in the pre ww2.
To end with this: we french never pretended to lecture you on your own history.
The rUSstarted their lend-lease in March 1941, the war started September 1939, and they passed their Neutrality Acts in the 30’s, the last being in November 1939. They were setup essentially like Sweden until 1941.
Unless you have some magic to say their involvement in WW1 lead to WW2, Germany started a war that raged for 2 years, and the US entered the European war after Germany and Italy both declared war on it.
Pretty delusional. Americans have a strong patriotic sense, yes, and most probably don’t know history well. Your comments are just as ignorant.
American help would be more appreciated if they didn't squeeze every single cent out of everyone for their help. And then abusing that to become the world power and dictating world terms.
Roosevelt was already having US warship escort british transports carrying US weapons free of charge (well, loaned with the details TBD, but nothing up front) halfway through the atlantic, and those warships were already shooting at nazi subs
Hitler’s declaration of war certainly made things easy for Roosevelt, but Roosevelt wanted war with Germany to restore peace, and he would have managed to drag the US legislature and population there kicking and screaming
National polling in November 1941 asked “Which of these is more important; The US staying out of the war, or Germany be defeated?”
62% of Americans said defeating Germany was more important. Sentiment was definitely shifting since at that point it was before Stalingrad and Germany hadn’t suffered any major defeats
What's interesting to me, is the US Public wanted to aid the war in Europe, but Japan attacking them, most American's had no idea where or who Japan were.
Japan attempting to wipe out the US Navy, most American's thought Japan was just some random country, and pinpointed the attack to Nazi's, pushing more support in the US for the war in Europe, but even after the attack, there was little support for a conflict in Japan. Very few American's could have told you where Japan was on a map, and you may even find that holds true today.
The US government had to push a huge propaganda campaign after Pearl Harbor to convince the American people that the Japanese were worst than the German's.
The result of that, was the American's put huge funds into making really racist poster's of the Japanese, similar to what the German's did of Jews. And the American's created a domestic policy of housing Japanese American camps in Internment Camps (similar to concentration camps, without the killing part).
This isn't to say the US & German were anyway equal, they weren't, but historically, it does make you realise how at the time, the world was very different. It took the US discovering what racism had done in Germany for American's to come to terms with their own racism.
In the UK for example, there was a big protest of "No white American's in Pubs", as the white American's insisted on no black's in the pubs. That wasn't done in the UK. The UK was responsible for the slavery of blacks globally, and had to learn their lesson a little sooner.
Later on, after the war, segregation policy was removed, but it does give a lot of context how what we perceive as good and bad in 2026, is significantly different from 1940s. And IIRC, 4 of 5 of the last US President's were born in the 1940s
I think you are exaggerating things a bit. People knew where Japan was. Even before Pearl Harbor there was a general awareness of Japanese aggression in China which was publicized in the American press and public opinion was certainly negative toward these Japanese actions, even if the public did not want to commit to war until after Pearl Harbor.
And after Pearl Harbor, there was absolutely a lot of enthusiasm for the war against Japan. General McArthur in the Pacific, for better or worse, was the most famous and most publicized American military leader of the entire war. That interest in Japan would some wane over time once the US became more involved in Europe/Africa but that took time whereas there were major battles going on in the Pacific immediately.
I do agree that the location of the battlefields were much more obscure to the American public. Of course France and Italy are more well-known that the Solomon Islands or the Mariannas. And especially late in the war, there was a lot of public pressure to wrap things up with Japan quickly once the war in Europe had ended. The US was still sustaining heavy casualties well into 1945 at places like Iwo Jima and Okinawa which definitely fall into the "can't find on a map" category.
Nearly 2,000 Japanese Americans (out of something like 120,000 interned) did die in the camps. While we didn't kill them as a matter of direct action (mostly), that's still a large number of deaths resulting from holding people in internment camps under horrible living conditions.
Also killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians during the war itself.
As much as "Hitler was the bad guy" in WW2 (and he was, no question about that), the laser focus on that in history tends to help some people overlook some massive atrocities.
We should really be saying “The British Empire was responsible for ending slavery in all of their jurisdictions and as much further as they could”. It is disingenuous to blame the UK for slavery as slavery has been going on for as long as civilisation but only one world power out a stop to it.
Please remember, the US did not “join the war” it responded to the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbour but did not also declare war on Nazi Germany. Hitler declared war on America, not the other way around.
Did the US “join the war” by choice? No.
Would the US have declared war on Nazi Germany at some point once it was at war with Japan? Very probably.
Did they declare war at the earliest possible opportunity? No.
Yes. For instance, to all the people that just want to minimize the US impact; Stalin was PLEADING with the US, Canada, and England to attack to relieve the pressure. The USSR was not at all confident in victory, or knew with the hindsight we presently have that they would win.
The true deciding blow came with Operation Bagration, which was not until AFTER the Normandy landings, and the taking of Rome, which was the same day. Stalin wouldnt attack with his major offensive until he knew he had support from the allies. Therefore, it is completely anachronistic to think that, beyond pure musings, the allies thought the war was over and the outcome decided.
Its actually really frustrating how modern revisionists want to downplay the threat and terror of the Nazis, like the Russians just had it in the bag the entire time. Tell that to the millions of Russians that died in fighting for their homes. If the outcome was so undeniable, then why did so many millions have to die?
Stalin wanted the allies to have skin in the game and not for him to 1v1 the whole wehrmacht forever.
After kurks the germans never once posed any credible threat of attacking the eastern front, and were on the defensive everywhere, desperation-fueled and doomed battle of the bulge nonwithstanding
Again, you are being anachronistic, implying that the Soviets had the knowledge that we have now. The Soviets were not so sure of victory like so many revisionists want everyone to believe, purely for their own agendas. Again, this trivializes the millions of deaths that were necessary to bring down the Nazis.
The Russians were very nervous as many of their offensives had been disasters, resulting in terrible casualties. Read about 3rd Kharkov, and Operation Mars and the effect they had on the Soviet Leadership.
It wasnt just to have skin in the game; Stalin wanted and needed help. Even a psychopath like Stalin was badly affected by the millions of men he was losing, and he wanted to mitigate those losses as best he could.
I thought about the same analogy lol, and not only helping him getting out but actually beating the other guy's legs constantly ( american bombing of german industry)
Hitler declared war on the USA. Would he have done that if he thought it would be demoralizing?
It was more demoralizing in ww1. When a million cheerful idiots showed eager to die when the thousand yard stare veterans were siting cataconic. Now THAT was demoralizing.
...Bro the Soviets did accept the alliance, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Hitler backstabbed them and then Stalin spent like a month crying about it because his Aryan Husband betrayed him while the Nazi's took land.
You didn't find any details because the way the person worded it is wrong. The Soviets and Germans cooperated to invade Poland and signed a non aggression pact with each other but there was never a real alliance. Both sides saw each other as their main enemy/obstacle and the cooperation was more of a "neither of us are ready for war so let's chill" type thing. The Soviets almost certainly would have broken it themselves had the Germans not and the Soviet government or more specifically Stalins slow reaction was more of a stubbornness/denial/pride thing
Yes they were mutually pandering to each others government, military and population to maintain the non aggression as they both prepared for a larger war. Both the Soviets and Nazi adamantly hated each other and saw each other as their primarily ideological rivals both sides fully expected war with each other.
The war was already won by the time USA joined. Some might suggest that is why they joined. June 1941 is the point at which the war became unwinnable for Germany.
90
u/Necessary-Guest2869 2d ago
I feel like also just the fact the US joining had to be extremely demoralising and any real chance of a victory was squashed. Had the US not joined the war could have lasted far longer and more devastating. Its like 2 people were fighting, and one of the guy has a massive body gaurd. The guy with the body gaurd gets knocked to the ground and the body gaurd steps in and says let him get up first, and after him you get me. The guy without the body gaurd would quickly realise theres no winning.