American Contribution

Americans often exaggerate US contribution in the world wars - and they nearly always underestimate the British role. The British Army was the decisive force in the victory of 1918, though the presence of American troops certainly served to undermine German morale.

The US certainly played an important financial role as a source of money and material for Britain and her allies. But the British Empire had the resources to win without American support. It would just have taken longer.

World War II is different. Here the US role was bigger in both military and financial terms. But once again the war was won by an alliance, not a single country. The contribution of the Soviet Union was greater in terms of manpower. The contribution of the British Empire was certainly equal to that of the United States. Britain was greater in terms of intelligence.

And let's not forget that both wars were fought and not lost for considerable periods (1914-1917) - (1939-1941) without American participation. Had there been no War of Independence, Americans would have been ready for action - like the Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders - at the outset.

Also, the British stood alone in the Battle of Britain before the Americans even arrived and Operation Sealion would almost certainly have failed because of British naval superiority in the Channel.

 

I was under the impression the French had also added a bit to the butcher's bill.

 

The Chinese fought the Japanese from 1937-1945, and lost 3 million soldiers and 17 million civillians. (Conservitive estimates)
They prevented the Russians from having to fight on 2 fronts at once.
I believe they also should deserve acknowledgement for their contribution and their sacrifice.

 

What is your point?

Later

 

This topic has been raised and argued on these Forums before . As far as WWII is concerned the arguments are elliptical and emotive ; agreement is never reached - far from it in fact and valued contributors have resigned in the past over perceived slights against the relative efforts of Allied Nations.

Views of this point have altered in line with political expediency and 'media bias' both at the time and since.

All of us like to think that 'our' Nations are heroic and perfect but life and history are never that simple - or simplistic. I hope that issues discussed on this Forum can serve to enlighten those who would seek to downplay the sacrifices of any who struggled against tyranny.

 

I think the US contribution in WW1 is the overlooked aspect, along with the fact that the French bled themselves dry against the Germans. Lets not forget the Italians and various other nations that contributed.

As for WW2, its a bit of a pointless discussion. British industrial power could never have hoped to liberate Europe alone. The war would have gone on longer and the Soviets would have done the liberating while GB drove around the desert and tried to get footholds through the balkans and Italy.

The truth of the matter is that it was an Alliance of nations that, as an Alliance were able to concentrate on their strengths and work together to bring down TWO totalitarian regimes.

Personally, threads that start like this just seem to be an attempt at trolling which seems very disrespectful given those lives laid down in the conflicts.

 

In my opinion, I don't care who did how much of what to win the war. The important part is that they actually contributed. America, France, Russia, England, China, Canada, Austrailia, and all the other small countries played an important role some way or another and got the job done. And that's all that should matter.

 

I'd disagree with that, the US joined the war in 1917 but were unable to contribute significantly until 1918, the offensive of 1918 began with British attacks in August, these were the attacks that helped to finish the Germans. The US didn't begin their attacks until months later!

 

In WW I, the US effort was the straw that broke the camel's back. To deny that their deaths and injuries were insignificant is reprehensible. As for WW II, without the efforts of both the industrial complex and the soldiers, there is a potential that the war would continue for decades. Or that the russians would defeat Germany and take over all of Europe. Overall, the United States may not have lost as many people as others, but that is because we were fighting to keep it from our homes. Others did not have that chance.

 

The Americans made the war lasted shorter than it could have lasted. The Soviets gave the Germans hell on the east front. The British bombed the living crap out of the population. HITLER led his people into abyss. The war could been won without either the US, or the UK, or the USSR. But it couldn’t have been won if HITLER actually had a brain. So don't thank the Allies, thank Hitler.

 

Hitler was a NKVD agent in disguise. :adolf:

 

let's also remember that at the time of America's arrival to Europe in WWI, Germany was also moving the rest of its army from the East after the end of hostilities with Russia and Great Britain and France would have found it very difficult to press onward. Like WWII, they could only provide a sound defense but no offense.

 

One must agree that Hitler should have died after the fall of France. Why didn't someone assassinate that son of a dumb @$$.
What if a French patriot assassinated Hitler in Paris?

 

Please explain that strictly "financial role" to my two relatives who died in the war. And by "It would just have taken longer" you just mean a few thousand more lives right? No big deal.

 

As Someperson has been rather quiet since his original posting, I'm inclined to agree with Vince Noir's assessment above.....

 

Considering the state the troops in the east were in and the situation the German economy was in at the time, not sure how much of an impact they would have had. I genuinly believe the US involvement in WW1 was mainly a morale thing, the idea that there were more troops coming motivated the troops in Europe enough to continue the fight. That said, the Germans were broken before the US engaged them.

 

Sure, USA had a minor role in WWII, they helped a little, maybe shortened the war a little, but the allies would have fared as good with or without USA.

It's the same for Germany, which had no significant impact on the events of WWII.

Com'on...this has to be a joke, USA was just the most powerfull ally in economy, industry, naval and air forces, and now their contribution would be marginal ? I call this rewriting history.

 

Maybe sOmepersOn would like to comment, as he/she started the topic ? Hello ? Hell...ooooo ?......Helll...ooo...ooo...ooo (Echo...ooo...ooo...ooo )

 

The same can be said about the addition of Germany's eastern armies. At the very least, with the addition of those armies, would Britain and France been able to end the war? The additional german armies would have stiffen their defenses and continue the war of attrition.

 

Prior to us entering the war, we pumped England with convoys of supplies not only to defend them but also help the great nation survive. Loss of life and great risks of life were unselfishly extended by the US to answer the call. If you want to take the US out of the equation, you should also delete the support we provided prior to us entering the war. I find it unlikely that Britain would have survived without the support of the United States.

Britain was a great source for intelligence, but perhaps it is exaggerated in some ways by the lack of proper credit. England has been credited with breaking the enigma code. Wasn’t it the Polish government with civilian support prior to the German invasion, which successfully broke the code first and later provided support to England?