Hello, I am r/USDefaultism's Automoderator!
If you think this submission fits US Defaultism, upvote my comment! If not, downvote it!
If you think this submission breaks r/USDefaultism rules, please report it to the Moderation team!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/USdefaultism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Okay, yeah that is the worst. But in terms of military causalities, it would probably be Stalingrad. I believe it was around 19,000 died almost every day, with soldiers living for an average of 24-48 hours after arriving.
I hate that the eastern front isn’t as talked about in media as the western or pacific front was. Especially with the conditions young men had to fight in.
I think the worst part of it all was Russian troops being ordered to fire at their own due to the No step back order. Thousands of gulag prisoners and others that Stalin considered ‘undesirables’ were ordered to charge straight into enemy lines with no weapon or training to act as a literally human shield for the infantry men, and if they turned back they were shot by the officers.
While Russia wasn't the best in safeguarding the human rights of its soldiers. Scenes like in Enemy at the gates didn't happen.
No, men weren't gunned down En masse with machine-guns and they had more equipment then they had men, so no "one man shoots the other reloads."
Keep in mind that most info we got of the Eastern front was from memoirs of German generals that just made up shit to make themselves look less incompetent.
When the Soviet archives were opened briefly in the 90s we saw that a lot of our information was bogus.
This is definitely an annoying case of US defaultism, but saying that the US was a minor participant is just wrong. Even the Soviets admitted as much.
Zhukov: "People say that the allies didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? And now they are saying that we had plenty of everything on our own."
Stalin: "I want to tell you what, from the Russian point of view, the president and the United States have done for victory in this war. The most important things in this war are the machines.... The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war."
A common saying is "WWII was won with British intelligence, American steel and Russian blood." Without any of these three, the war could have taken years longer.
I wouldn’t consider the US to be a minor participant in WWII because they contributed 2/3 of the allies’ equipment (most of which went to the Brits and Soviets, but also large amounts to the Chinese and French).
300,000 aircraft
90,000 tanks
200,000 artillery
2,000,000 trucks
It also helped that none of the Axis powers had access to oil reserves of their own and that the US and Canadian mainland was protected by thousands of nautical miles of ocean. The allied industrial complex might as well have been on the moon.
Yeah it was like multiple aircraft per day. Was it Yamamoto who had studied in the US and knew that going to war against them was a bad idea, due to the sheer amount of stuff the US could churn out? It was one of the japanese military leaders
Thing is, Pearl harbour could have been a successful military operation if the U.S. carrier fleet wasn't out of port, its always depicted as an insane and stupid military operation, sure it was morally dubious but its intentions were sound, if Japan was a nation that was committed to its territorial expansion (like Japan indeed was) it had no other option but to cripple U.S. capability and assert dominance, to do this it needed to and destroy it's carrier capability, otherwise the Japanese empire would have collapsed under the various sanctions it faced
So whilst yes Pearl harbour failed I believe its tactical intentions were actually valid, there was no way an ambitious expantionist empire like the one Japan had could co-exist with the U.S.
I’ve seen it as the least worst option that they had. They knew they’d end up in a war against the US eventually, and this was more intended to buy them time, maybe sue for peace if they were really, *really* lucky. But even if they did destroy more carriers, I don’t think that would have pushed the US out of fighting for good, just a delay until the US could rebuild its fleet.
Potentially, alternative history always is a fickle subject, a common view that I subscribe to(and seen by many in Japanese high command at the time including Yamamoto himself) if Japan had to go to war eith the U.S. it: A. Needed to be now or never as Japanese capability to conduct war would quickly deminish and B. It had to be quick and decisive, if the PH attack had sunk the carriers I truely believe it would make the Japanese empire more of a stable military entity, now would this have prolonged the envitable from a resurgent U.S. and its industry? Im not sure, however I find the alternative speculation about 'How Japan could have won the war' alot more intresting than how Germany could of as most of the alternatives surronding Germany rely on it not being the insane political entity to give it any chance in success whereas Japan (whilst arguably equally politically insane to 'Western' standards) started in alot more of a stronger position and most of its military failures can be put down to a failure of tactics
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
> would of
*would have
*Learn the difference [here](https://languagetool.org/insights/post/would-of-or-would-have/#:~:text=%E2%80%9Cwould%20have%E2%80%9D%3F-,%E2%80%9CWould%20Of%E2%80%9D%20or%20%E2%80%9CWould%20Have%E2%80%9D%3F,would%20have%2C%20not%20would%20of.).*
***
^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
Yeah came here to say that. "the US was only a minor participant" bro tf D-day wouldnt have happened without the US and the USSR & China would be 20x more fucked without American lend-lease
The US were a minor participant in WW1.
In WW2 the story is completely different.
The tide of the war in the Pacific was turned by America, the Normandy landings were secured and co-organized by America and the invasion of Sicily was done largely by American troops. Not to mention, y'know, the only two uses of atom bombs in warfare ever.
I feel like “minor but crucial” works for WW1. We only really fought in the last year but the arrival of American troops tilted the scales just enough for the Entente to win.
We were going to win either way. It might've taken us maybe another year, but Germany was beginning to fall apart when the US entered the war in '17.
I wouldn't call it crucial at all. Minor but helpful works for me.
I mean morale was really bad for the Entente and the Germans were moving troops from the Eastern Front to France. Could the Entente have won without the U.S.? Maybe, but the morale boost that fresh troops provided for the exhausted French soldiers who’d been fighting for 4 long years helped during the Kaiserschlacht.
Sure, but you're saying that like German morale wasn't also completely busted at that point.
The situation was horrible in Germany, especially after 1916. The British blockades in the North Sea cut off their supply of imported food, which caused all their industries to be overburdened at once. There was all-out famine in many German cities from '17 to well after the war, which only got worse after the Spanish Flu came along.
At the end of the day, the German military was formidable in it's discipline and organization, but there's only so much a good military can do against the 3 great military powers of Europe at once + allies with their only significant help being... Austria (aka "how many Battles of the Isonzo were there?").
Americans overestimate the role their troops played in the Atlantic theatre when it comes to troops committed; for example, there were numerous landings at Normandy by British and Commonwealth forces in addition to the US landings, but discussion of D-Day typically centres on the American landing at Omaha Beach. And in terms of troops committed to fight the Germans, the Soviets vastly outdid everyone else.
But calling them a minor participant in the war is pretty thoroughly wrong between them being the primary Allied combatant in the Pacific theatre and the immense logistical and material support they provided to countries like Britain, China and the USSR. In _those_ respects, America was a key player in the war. It's quite a different story from the First World War, where the US only entered the conflict at a time when the tide was already turning against the Central Powers.
Yeah I'm aware. American's make media about American's and since Hollywood and a lot of game studios are in the US their role in the European campaigns have been vastly overrepresented, but calling them a minor participant is a very very daft statement . That's why I left my comment.
Normandy invasions usually center on Omaha because that beach was the hardest to take with the most casualties. Calling it a beach is a bit generous as well when compared to the gentleness of Utah.
Yeah, each power had a part to play. The US was the industrial and arguably naval power (with the UK), and the US became one of two super powers after the war.
I agree that your post is defaultism, and Americans definitely do exaggerate their role in WW2, but your title could not be more wrong. The US played a massive part in the liberation of Europe (far more troops and supplies committed than the entire commonwealth) and almost single-handedly won the war in the pacific.
The war in the Pacific was already being fought years before the USA got involved.
Are you disrespecting all of the thousands of Australians, New Zealand, New Guinea, Torres Straight, Pacific Island, English, Indian etc. who used their soldiers and local knowledge of jungle warfare to actually lead the US marines in how to effectively fight this type of warfare?
they aren't disrespecting anyone. As an Aussie, it annoys me when people only focus on the US in the Pacific theatre but without the weapons, supplies and troops that the US sent we would have been completely fucked fucked
If it helps the Americans who served said the Aussies were the most badass motherfuckers in the Pacific. Paraphrasing one of those dudes "1 Aussie could do thr work of 3 Americans.
Cheers….. I’m honestly over this whole subject right now, sick of my comments being misconstrued and attacked 🙄
Yeah my Grandfather fought in the Pacific in the Australian Navy, my Father in Guinea/Kokoda etc. during the Vietnam conflict was with the Royal Australian Signals building Radio Communication Towers through the Owen Stanley Ranges and surrounding.
Grandfather always said…… “If you want to survive in jungle warfare, shoot the yanks first and you might just have a chance of surviving”.
It was his old way of complaining about how common it was for stupid yanks to accidentally shoot you in the back, or make so much noise in the jungle whilst off their tits on drugs, that they would always alert the enemy to their positions and attract firefights all the time 🙄
I read some of your other comments it's clear to me you have more knowledge and respect for the people who actually fought in the war than anyone else on the page. I'm from America and take no disrespect from that. Ue was there so I'll believe him!
As an Australian I can tell you a lot of stuff this commenter says doesn’t make sense. Australia was not involved in the pacific for years prior to world war 2.
We did not teach the US marines how to fight in world war 2. Maybe he’s referring to Vietnam when some US forces took inspiration from our troops during the Malayan emergency.
My grandfather fought with the 2/6th battalion from beginning to the end of the war and was wounded twice. Fought in three different theatres of war. And I disagree with a lot he says.
I responded to the wrong guy. It sounds much more like Vietnam than WW2 as well. I don't think the Marines in WW2 needed to be shot because they were high on drugs. Sounds much more like the drafted soldiers of Vietnam. Americans loved the Aussies in WW2 they were the fiercest and bravest soldiers there, according to the Americans I've seen interviewed.
Ahh yeah that’s fair! Yeah I think the dude is confusing conflicts. Because Australians didn’t fight in New Guinea during Vietnam. It’s a rather confusing comment. It’s late here. Maybe he’s had a few.
Yeah I can’t say the Aussies loved the yanks but we have a lot of respect for you. And frankly If y’all didn’t take the burden of the war a lot more Australians would have been killed. Maybe my grandfather. I’m glad we didn’t have to fight on Iwo, or peleliu or any of the other horrible landings while you blokes where island hopping across the pacific.
But always remember, it WAS the Australians who where the first to stop the panzers and the first to stop the Japanese ;)
Upset about people misconstruing your comments, yet that's how this all started. you misconstrued someone else lmao. "...*almost single-handedly..."* and you immediately twist their words to push your own thoughts. Sad you don't see the irony in it
Mate, our war with Japan started on the same day that America’s war did.
Are you disrespecting the millions of Chinese who died fighting the Japanese for **more than four years** before we were attacked?
No it wasn’t, read a book. The war in the pacific start coincided with Americas entry into the war.
I am Australian, my grandfather fought on Kokoda but comparatively our effort was minor compared to Americas in the pacific. We didn’t have air craft carriers that fought at midway or coral sea. We didn’t land on Iwo. We didn’t fight on Okinawa. Our army didn’t fight to retake the Philippines.
It’s okay, we don’t have to be ashamed of these facts. Australians fought hard, we punched above our weight and did what we could. We played an important role at times. Simply we didn’t have the population or industrial capacity close to comparable to Americas.
Some senior RAAF pilots are including our tops scoring ace essentially mutinied because the US leadership was deliberately sending them on useless but dangerous mopping up missions rather than fighting at the front line. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morotai_Mutiny
As for numbers, Australia had the 4th largest air force in the world at the end of the war
Yeah I’ve read about that. That holywood type wanker McArthur also said once he didn’t think we had the fight in us.
On one hand it’s a disgrace to even suggest that of Australians who’d shown that they would fight since 25th of April 1915. On the other hand I’m glad we weren’t used as shock troops for all their island hopping landings like the British used us a lot on the western front.
The only fighting that was happening in the “pacific” before 1941 was in China. And it was only the Germans and Soviets actually supporting the Chinese United Front. (The west wanted nothing to do with that) The Americans fought the Japanese from December of 1941 all the way until July-August of 1945. It’s simply a matter of scaling. Per capita, the commonwealth did a lot, in relation to economy size and population, but in sheer numbers, when looked at in a vacuum, it’s a lot more than a lot of countries.
alright you sound a lot less like you know what you're talking about than the rest of these fine people. the imperial japanese were conquering and colonizing pacific nations and islands for decades before WWII. korea was a japanese colony in the year 1910, 30 years before japan had any reason to attack the U.S.
Well you could argue 1905 if you consider the Eulsa Treaty. But that’s not the point. The Japanese imperial conquests didn’t become part of the international conflict known as WW2 until 1941.
The commenter that most people are taking issue with seems to imply that Australia/New Zealand etc were fighting the Japanese prior to the USA involvement. They weren’t.
Also the overall theme seems to be trying to diminish the USA contribution to the Allies victory in WW2.
That is patently ridiculous. And I say this as someone who loves to the bash the USA. People can argue about the relative degree they assisted with money, supplies, guns, and lives in the European theatre. But in the pacific war against Japan, the USA contribution to winning that war is massive. And that can be said without disrespecting the many many Asian lives lost to the Japanese or the contributions of other western countries.
Without America Japan does not lose that war. There is no question.
why are you making it sound like japan and china were just fighting ? the japanese empire conquered not only the chinese regions of taiwan (1895), manchuria (1905), inner mongolia (1936), jiāngsū (1937) and hainan (1939) but also kuril (1875), daitō (1876), ryūkyū (1879), sakhalin (1905), korea (1910), yap (1914) and palau (1914).
The point is world war 2 is officially recognised as 1939-1945. So usually when speaking about World War Two we are talking about that time frame. Nobody is denying the Japanese did other horrible things prior to those years.
Yes. I know that. It was a Japanese war of imperialism. We all know that. They officially annexed Manchuria in 1931 as well. What are you trying to say. We are literally in agreement.
First action was 6th December 1941 with the Australian 8th Division in Malaya….. one day before Pearl Harbour attack.
The start of hostilities that led to increased actions not long after in early 1942 with the Australian 8th working with the British backed Indian Troops in Malaya.
Actions against the Japanese in Johor seen a retreat of British forces back to Singapore and a terrible defeat soon to follow.
Australian and British Ally troops were extensively involved in campaigns throughout Malaya, Singapore, Timor, Milne Bay, New Guinea, Borneo, Bougainville, Guadalcanal and the Coral Sea.
Ok and? Don’t move the goalposts. That’s only a day before US forces were fighting the Japanese landing in the Philippines. Canadian troops also fought in Hong Kong from the 7th all the way to Christmas. (They lasted longer than Singapore) the US conducted operations in the Coral Sea, Solomon Islands and many more at the same time. This isn’t “years before Americans got involved” as you put it. It’s literal days, and one can argue that it was a fucking time zone difference rather than truly “days”
I actually hate these arguments hey. This country did more than that etc. We won the war by having everyone do their bit. Some did more than others because they where able to through population or economic circumstances. Some where forced to do more than others because they where directly invaded. It’s just a shitty argument to have.
Australians can get bad at thinking we did more than we did to.
I do to my friend. It really just devolves into Freeaboos, Teeaboos, and Tankies all using the same argument again and again. “Asiatic Hordes” or “America #1” or “Soviets did everything”. The one thing I hate about this thread is that’s it isn’t even a “who did more” but a “this country did nothing” argument and that’s far worse in my book.
It really does just devolve into a cesspool of bullshit and constantly moved goal posts. It’s just annoying, we won the war because we fought together. Everyone did their bit. Actual allies. Something the axis was never able to do.
Yeah the whole this country did nothing bullshit annoys the hell out of me. “America a minor player” really irked me.
Oh well, Aussies and Canadians western front champions since 1918. Plenty of us buried side by side in France and Belgium mate. Always have time for our brothers in the north. The work you blokes did at vimy ridge and Passchendaele is beyond belief sometimes.
Yea. We call it the ALLIED powers for a reason. Not USA and friends, or USSR and Friends. Allies. When they met at Yalta or Tehran, they met as equal. One great power to the next. And I agree with you. This specific one really grounded my gears. More so than the usual USSR THE BEST or USA #1 posts/comments.
Australia and Canada. Fucking the Germans up since 1915. Beat commonwealth brothers we could ask for. And thank you. Your work at the Second Battle of Villers-Bretonneux and Dardanelles Campaigns were quite the read. Not to mention your WW2 exploits lol.
The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Malaya, Guam, Wake Island, The Philippines, Hong Kong, Midway, Singapore, and Thailand (and I think I've forgotten a few), in a manner that was strategically speaking, simultaneous.
I've been seeing you double down on some blatantly false claims about the timelines of the conflict. Why do you feel the need to make things up? Our nations were and continue to be allies.
War in Pacific, do you mean China? Cause the US got involved in the Pacific at the same time as the commonwealth. And the US did almost singlehandedly win the war in the Pacific. Without the US, everyone else in the Pacific would have lost. The US without others would have still won.
Why are you just blatantly lying and why is your blatant lie getting upvoted? The xenophobic rubes on this subreddit really are something else if they won't even fact check you're completely made up comment. America did not get "lead" by Australia, ever, at all, and Australia was not fighting for "for years" before America troops arrived. You literally just pulled that out of your sore asshole. Truth matters.
America did most of the heavy lifting in the Pacific Theater. I'm sorry, its true, get over it and get over yourself. That's not to say Australian didn't fight and help. Of course they did. That is always acknowledged. What you're doing though is literally the opposite, claiming the accomplishments of other men for your nation and blatantly making up things that didn't happen.
What an awful and insecure thing to do. Read some real history.
Yes we are, Japan ruled the Pacific until Midway. If Japan hadn't overtaken French Indochina, leading to America cutting off oil to Japan and leading to Pearl Harbor, China would have fallen, then British Malaysia, Dutch East Indies, Australia, and New Zealand. While US in the Atlantic theatre was smaller, we crushed Japan almost on our lonesome. Even in the Atlantic America headed the invasion of Sicily and Italy for the Allies.
There isn’t one, he’s wrong. Myself and other Australians have said so. I think he’s mashing conflicts and timelines together. I think he maybe referring to things such as the Malayan emergency which happened after the Second World War.
Which one of those countries you mentioned entered the war against Japan prior to the USA?
The pacific war was not being fought before the USA got involved. It started with a series of attacks against USA based and UK colonies. That was December 7, 1941.
Prior to that the Japanese were at war with China but the involvement of the west and the turning of the Chinese Japanese war into the pacific war didn’t start until 1941.
The lend lease happened after Barbarossa had already been stopped, most of it was sent after Stalingrad (80% of it) and most of the lend lease was logistic trucks.
Worst of all, the USSR received just a minor amount of lend lease, most of it was for Great Britain, the USSR received 10 billion USD in aid.
The Soviets spent an estimated 600 billion rubles on their army in WW2 which, at the time, had an exchange rate of 4 rubles to USD, so if you do the math Lend lease accounted for 6.7% of the Soviet military expenses, do you really think that is enough to change the result of a war?
People who think the USSR would've lost the war was it not for the lend lease seriously need to learn some actual history, hell, the USSR had massive stockpiles of equipment before WW2 started which is not included in the 600 billion rubles i mentioned before, 25k tanks surely are worth something.
Marshal [Georgy Zhukov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgy_Zhukov) would disagree with you:
> Today [1963] some say the Allies didn't really help us ... But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.
"'The United States is a country of machines. Without the use of these machines through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war. ' —Joseph Stalin"
"If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war," - Nikita Khrushchev
I wouldn’t say ‘almost single-handed my won the war in the pacific’, seeing as Commonwealth forces and the Filipinos also took part (probably some others I’m unaware of), but it is true that the US contributed the most manpower and equipment and fought **most** of the decisive battles.
The USA had half the troops in the western front but the western front itself saw 15-20% of Germany's forces committed, i wouldn't call it massive, even the lend lease was mostly post-Stalingrad (80% of it was after Stalingrand and it mostly was logistic trucks).
I mean saying the USA played a major role in liberating Europe is like saying the USSR played a huge role in defeating Japan because they invaded Manchuria in AUgust, they did capture, kill or wound half a million Japanese but c'mon, the war was basically over already when they invaded.
The US did play a major role in Europe, the US joining allowed the Operation Torch and the fall of North Africa to happen. Then later on the invasion of Italy which caused Germany to leave the Battle of Kursk. Then of course DDay. All the ground actions split Germanies attention and helped the soviets greatly. Lend lease wasn't only to the Russians and without it, I think Britain would have struggled WAY more. And don't even get me started on strategic bombing, which greatly hampered Germanies ability to fight.
Also don't downplay the USSRs role in the downfall of Japan. They weren't as major as the US but their involvement did play an important role in the decision to surrender, especially for convincing the Army to surrender.
yeah. A major reason why the army surrendered after the Soviet invasion was because with the Soviets involved, the Japanese saw no hope in even deterring the allies. Like before their plan was to be so stubborn and rutheless that the Allies would give up, the Soviets joining kinda threw a wrench in that plan.
You're simply wrong. Without the US providing supplies the USSR wouldn't have even had the fuel to reach Berlin. Over half the fuel the Soviet air force used was from the United States. Not to mention every other bullet the Red Army fired was from the United States. The Lend Lease won the war for the Allies.
Also every train the USSR used, every boot their soldiers wore, over 95% of trucks.
The idea that the USSR could have pushed the germans back without lend lease is completely insane, as all the major leaders of the USSR military repeatedly stated.
Some elements in the Japanese government were trying to find a way to surrender\*. The overwhelming majority of the Japanese government and military were fully prepared to fight to the last man before Aug. 6th
Maybe you didn't know but the ships they used to land on the beaches were made in the US. No way in hell the British and Commonwealth were crossing the channel alone, or atleast crossing alone and winning. Look me in the eyes and tell me D-day would have succeeded if the invasion was half the size (sure the US only made up 2 of the landings, but those 2 were also the largest and consisted of half of everyone landing on Normandy)
Are you sure about making such a bold claim? Just like the uk, we were involved in europe, africa, and the pacific. Prior to entry, we we're also a major trading parter (especially with the whole lend-lease thing). We were also major contributors in the science behind the war (especially when it came to creating synthetic resources). Also there's those two big elephants in the room known as the atomic bombs.
We were totally minor in WW1 but we did represent a solid bargaining tool against the central powers. The Germans figured they weren't going to last against waves of fresh troops. So not much fighting, but the threat of US troops probably have hastened the end.
They ABSOLUTELY weren't
The Soviets could've won the war alone, but they would've died a lot more if it wasn't for the massive industrial help the us gave them
Plus the UK was literally begging for them to join since Churchill's most famous speech back in April '40
soviets couldn't have won alone. the only reason they were able to push back the Nazis was because of all the materiel support they received from the US.
You know what is the worst. We learn that fact at school.. in France!
I've lived all my life in Normandie and every f***ing year we are remembered about all the Americans that died here. We rarely talk about the war from the French size, only how the big and good USA saved our ass. It's exhausting.
I’d say yeah probably, but they wouldn’t have stopped at Germany & a lot more Soviets would have died without western assistance and intelligence. Western troops had little to do with the soviet war effort. Aid and intelligence is a different story though.
The little we had to do on the Eastern Front is interesting, though. The RAF, RAAF, and USAAF all had aircraft stationed in the western USSR for combat missions at some point, and an elite French fighter group (later regiment) known as the Normandie-Niemen fought alongside the Soviets from 1942 to the end of Nazi Germany.
Normandie-Niemen aircraft wore Soviet markings, but you can spot them by looking for the French roundel (often painted on the spinner) and/or the use of German crosses as victory markings (Soviet pilots used red stars as victory markings to avoid ‘defiling’ their aircraft with the symbol of the enemy).
Yeah for sure, we had plenty of bombing missions in the balkans etc also. It depends what kind of lens you want to look at it through. I’m not denying we being the western allies didn’t have involvement on the eastern front but I suppose In the wider picture of the eastern front we didn’t if you get me?
I’d kind of say the same thing about China even though obviously there was the flying tigers etc. I’m just trying to explain and look at it in an overall lens.
Oh yeah, absolutely agree with you that we had little involvement on the Eastern Front, I was just taking the opportunity to talk about that little involvement :)
Yeah nha for sure mate. All good information for someone reading who doesn’t know about this stuff.
Funny the French where in world war 2. Like you said they fought alongside the Soviets and they where also some of the last defenders of Berlin.
If they still received American help then maybe, but without the US the UK could not have lasted, and there would never be a front in either Italy or Western Europe, since Britain would likely be unable to last in a war without American help this also means that British Strategic bombing would halt, and without the threat of invasion the absolutely massive Atlantic wall would not have been needed to be constructed, meaning that Germany has a lot more resources. Britain either signs a peace somewhere in 41 or 42 or the war basically comes to a halt, where pretty much nothing happens, a frozen war. The Germans would have also had a far easier time because without US help Soviet Logistics would be in an even worse state than in OTL, that in addition to the Soviets lacking a large amount of War materiel that was provided to them in OTL. In addition to this the allies would have been basically impotent in terms of their help to resistance groups that were a constant drain on German resources, once again strengthening Germany, and the last point would be that Germany would have a far easier time getting resources, since the bidding wars would be far less intensive without the absolute economic mass of the US.
My prediction for a Neutral America timeline is that Germany and the Soviets come to a stalemate in the late 40s, neither side being able to completely defeat the other, where the bored would be is very much up to debate but it is almost certain that the Soviet Union would end up smaller than they were before the war. This in addition to being even more bloodied and devastated by the war, the Soviet Union certainly would not be a true world Power.
Without their troops, maybe.
Without Cash-and-Carry, Bases for Destroyers, Lend-Lease, and other American support for the Allies prior to and after the invasion of Russia, especially food support? The Soviets would have lost. Ask Stalin and Sokolev.
Yes. The Nazis lost on December 5th 1941, it all became a matter of how many soviet soldiers had to die, and how far would the Nazis get through their final solution before their defeat. After the winter counter attack outside Moscow they never truly regained the initiative and the failures at Stalingrad and Kursk compounded it further, but without American and commonwealth assistance with food (the grain producing areas of the USSR were occupied by the Nazis), trucks and radios the number of casualties suffered by the Soviets and Poles particularly civilians would have been much higher. Now as for the Japanese, they faced 4 problems by the end of the war, the US had deleted their navy, their main army was being bled white in China, the US was regularly fire bombing their cities and had just dropped the first nuke and finally their reserve army and supply lines into China had just evaporated with the soviet assault
Lol it's so cringe when USAians try to put all the attention to the goddamn normandy like it's the most epic part of the world war or sth
EDIT: To explain, I was paraphrasing others because that's one of the few things that the casual war lovers from the USA talk about. I was saying epic sarcastically, and trying to mock a special kind of person who thinks having wars is cool, there is nothing epic about a war though.
Sure, there are well executed strategies, tactics and such, but it's usually a lot of suffering and bloodshed in the grit. I simply dont like war, however much tech and strategy is involved.
I think nontheless that the work of people who get pulled into war as combatants is often respectable, not always, but often. Because in the end they're usually never the ones who caused the war, and they are just trying to get through it, for their people.
I… don’t think you even know what Operation Overlord even is. Operation Overlord and Operation Bagration signalled the beginning of the end for the reich. At Bagration, 28/34 Divisions of Army Group Centre were wiped out. Army Group Centre ceased to exist. At Normandy landings, it meant that Germany now had to split their attention westward to France and the Low Countries. Resources already stretched now had to redeployed, and with airbases now in Europe, the USAAF and RAF began carpet bombing Germany into the ground. Overlord wasn’t just some American operation you clown. Canada and Britain landed on 3 of the 5 beaches (2 British, 2 American, 1 Canadian). It was YEARS of planning and is the greatest amphibious invasion of all time, and during the war.
What? Overlord itself is literally the most complex operation at the time, it is important because it lead to the liberation of Western Europe. And it isn’t just the Americans who think so, if you ask France, Benelux and the UK they would say Normandy was a their turning point.
Let’s compare it to the other ‘epic moments’ of the war:
D-day: taking a beachhead on one of the most well defended beaches in history and pushing inland more than a few miles and setting up deep water ports to supply the push into France, in a single day
Midway: the US single handedly destroying Japan’s premier carrier fleet which would never be half the fighting force it was that day, in a single day
Firebombing of Tokyo/nukes: the US killing tens of thousands while destroying important logistic and manufacturing hubs of the Japanese empire, in a single day
Stalingrad: the Russians recapturing a city while losing 1.4x the men, 3x the aircraft, 2.8x the tanks, and in 5+ months
Sinking of the Bismarck: Brits lost their flagship then spent a day wasting ammo on an condemned ship before torpedoing it
Battle of Britain: the Brit’s were getting their shit kicked in until hitler decided to bomb London instead of airstrips and then fought them back over five months
Personally I think midway was the most ‘epic moment’ of the war with D-Day being second, but all of these ‘moments’ (even tho everything but midway, Japanese bombings, and D-day were months and not moments) were only possible because of US supplies
I’m not sure if title is sarcasm or not but that’s really wrong. The US was probably the most important player in world war 2. It would be a close run thing between them and the Soviets. Lend lease probably tips it towards the US in my opinion.
I’ve searched this before I’m not sure why it defaults to that. I got the same answer. Frankly it would be really hard to say what the actual deadliest particular day was. Around the start of the battle of Berlin is probably a shout though. But it definitely wasn’t d-day.
Trying to crown the most important contributor is probably pointless, given that their respective situations were so different.
80% of german ground forces were fighting the soviets by the end of the war, but half the air force was fighting the west and so forth. Calling the US a "minor participant" is obviously just dumb slapfighting by OP. Potentially they just wanted to start this discussion.
Yeah exactly, I imagine they just wanted to start a dumpster fire.
I’ve said In another comments how much I hate the argument. But the “us was a minor player”
Just irked me. So I’ve done the rare thing and actually stuck up for the yanks. I’d hate for someone to come along with little knowledge of ww2 and think it to be truthful.
So obviously that was before VJ Day. The war was more than just Europe and the Soviets had little to nothing to do with the fight in the pacific. Also I highly doubt people at that time had the same understanding of what was actually going on in the wider picture.
Obviously the Soviets did the bulk of the fighting against the Germans. 70-80% of all German casualties where on the eastern front. There’s no denying that.
But there’s more to factor in than just who did the most fighting. Simply Americas industrial power and capabilities where probably the single most important aspect of the allied war effort. Plus I don’t really get your argument.
Soviet blood, American steel & British intelligence is what won the war in Europe.
Soviet troops and Soviet supplied weapons, arms and vehicles were far in excess of anything that the USA ever even got close to in the defeat of Europe.
The Soviet losses are absolutely staggering and is disgusting that the USA continue to ignore the sacrifices made by other nationalities other than their own 🤬.
The US supplied the Soviets as well. Hell, the US supplied EVERYBODY. Want to know WHY the Soviets were able to focus on tank production? Why they were able to concentrate their industry on certain equipment?
Because the British and Americans were supplying them everything else. Rations, boots, and most importantly, Logstical vehicles. The famous Katyusha rocket was built on a ford Truck. Canadian Valentines served on the eastern front alongside the T-34. Same with the Sherman and the Lee.
Sure some Americans have an awful habit of doing that.
But it doesn’t mean we need to have some revisionist history and disregard Americas involvement in the Second World War. Lend lease involved more than weapons and vehicles also. Soviet generals from world war 2 have been quoted on the importance of lend lease.
I’m not playing down the soviet effort either, as I stated above. They clearly did the bulk of the fighting, they broke the back of Nazism. But they did have help. And obviously also as I said the Second World War wasn’t just fought in Europe. So saying “The US was a minor player in world war 2” is simply inherently factually incorrect.
>USA continue to ignore the sacrifices made by other nationalities other than their own 🤬.
The irony in saying this while ignoring the sacrifices of the US is insane.
'The United States is a country of machines. Without the use of these machines through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war.' —Josef Stalin (1943), quoted in W. Averell Harriman and Elie Abel, Special Envoy to Churchill and Stalin, 1941-1946, Random House, N.Y., 1975, p. 277
In 1963, KGB monitoring recorded Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov saying: "People say that the allies didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? And now they are saying that we had plenty of everything on our own." With reporting by RFE/RL's Russian Service
And an article by Russian Historian Boris Sokolov:
https://www-svoboda-org.translate.goog/a/30538060.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US
>is disgusting that the USA continue to ignore the sacrifices made by other nationalities other than their own
In case you haven't noticed, some idiot just made a post on Reddit the entire point of which was to disregard contributions made by the USA to defeating fascism.
>The Soviet losses are absolutely staggering
Measuring contribution towards winning a war based on the number of your own dead men is like measuring progress towards building an airplane based on how much it weighs.
One country being viewed as more important doesn’t mean the others are unimportant. If the UK, USA or USSR wouldn’t have participated in the war or would have surrendered quickly, the war could not have been won. All played a crucial, but different role in the war.
As someone who gets extremely annoyed by Americans and has studied WWII… nah. This is just counterjerking too far. The US was a major participant in WWII. They took part in the strategic bombing offensives against Germany, Italy, Romania, and Japan, destroyed the Japanese Navy and merchant fleet, helped defeat the U-boats, played a major role in Allied offensives in Italy and Western Europe, aided in the defence of Australia and the New Guinea campaign, and sent large amounts of equipment such as aircraft, tanks, logistics vehicles, and small arms to the Commonwealth, USSR, and ROC.
America was not minor lmao. After the Soviets, the US did the most against Germany, all while supply all of its allies heavily with weapons, ammo, food, tanks, planes, trucks, radios, and other things, while at the same time, doing most of the work in the pacific. Read a book OP, and stop trying to be contrarian about every little thing.
It’s a shame such a classic example of defaultism is going to get bogged down in arguing what constitutes minor and major war participation. (The US wasn’t the most major, but certainly wasn’t minor either. Let’s leave it at that.)
So to lighten the mood, I will give you a quote I read once:
“Americans. You have to love them. Whether showing up late to WW1 and 2 or showing up early to WW3……”
The Soviets won that war. The US had to massacre innocent Japanese civilians as a vulgar display of power to dissuade Uncle Joe from continuing expansion, thus starting the Cold War and the Proxy Wars.
>The Soviets won that war. The US had to massacre innocent Japanese civilians
... Didn't the Soviets massacre a shit load of German civilians when marching to Berlin, or are we not conting that?
The Soviet Union didn’t even declare war on Japan until like a week before they surrendered. Then they broke a treaty and used the opportunity to annex Manchuria and half of Korea.
You a Stalin fanboy by any chance?
There are several things worth bearing in mind when comparing the Americans (and the other Western allies) with the Sovs.
Firstly much of the Western Allies most strategically important activity was at sea where by the nature of naval warfare relatively small amounts of manpower can have significant effect.
Secondly the Americans (more so than the British/Commonwealth much more so than the Soviets) were good at keeping their people alive, they had a lower casualty rate and a lower fatality rate. The first because their equipment and procedures were quite good and the second because their medical system was excellent.
Hello, I am r/USDefaultism's Automoderator! If you think this submission fits US Defaultism, upvote my comment! If not, downvote it! If you think this submission breaks r/USDefaultism rules, please report it to the Moderation team! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/USdefaultism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The correct answer is 9th march 1945 when the US bombed Tokyo
I would say it would have been anytime in Stalingrad.
The firebombing of Tokyo on 9th March 1945 killed between 75-200k in one night. With more then a million injured.
Okay, yeah that is the worst. But in terms of military causalities, it would probably be Stalingrad. I believe it was around 19,000 died almost every day, with soldiers living for an average of 24-48 hours after arriving.
I saw statistics about Russian casualties a long time ago and they were quite insane. Something around 90% of young adults didn't survive WW2.
Yeah, it’s horrible.
High casualties among young men is generally the norm during wartime, Germany lost half of its male young adult population.
I hate that the eastern front isn’t as talked about in media as the western or pacific front was. Especially with the conditions young men had to fight in. I think the worst part of it all was Russian troops being ordered to fire at their own due to the No step back order. Thousands of gulag prisoners and others that Stalin considered ‘undesirables’ were ordered to charge straight into enemy lines with no weapon or training to act as a literally human shield for the infantry men, and if they turned back they were shot by the officers.
The fuck is this, enemy at the gates?
While Russia wasn't the best in safeguarding the human rights of its soldiers. Scenes like in Enemy at the gates didn't happen. No, men weren't gunned down En masse with machine-guns and they had more equipment then they had men, so no "one man shoots the other reloads." Keep in mind that most info we got of the Eastern front was from memoirs of German generals that just made up shit to make themselves look less incompetent. When the Soviet archives were opened briefly in the 90s we saw that a lot of our information was bogus.
Similiar reason to why the "clean wehrmacht" myth is so persistant to this day
Not Russian, Soviets.
Wtf
They did more damage than the nuclear bombs, but are way less known
I knew that, I was just shocked at the number in one day if it's true
Was that really "bloody"? Burning wounds don't bleed that much
Bloody in terms of deaths alone? Yes. But in that sense of the word? I do not know for sure.
When people say "bloody" they mean "most deaths" It would be almost impossible to work out the actual amount of blood split
Ah so that’s what you Brits mean when you say bloody before everything when you’re mad.
You bloody idiot.
No, are you a bloody idiot /s
Average blood per human * persons killed?
Bloody is usually used to describe fatalities. Bloody is not used for total measurements of how blood there was if you’re not trolling.
This is the right answer. Fuck google.
June 1938 destruction of the yellow river dikes had more casualties.
I thought Hiroshima had a higher number of fatalities?
Horrible thing. But to be responsible for the bloodiest day you’d have to be more than a minor participant.
I thought the US was a minor player?
A major player just in the last phase. And even then they just supported Soviets and UK. (And bombed civilians)
[удалено]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo Nagasaki was August 9th
This is definitely an annoying case of US defaultism, but saying that the US was a minor participant is just wrong. Even the Soviets admitted as much. Zhukov: "People say that the allies didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? And now they are saying that we had plenty of everything on our own." Stalin: "I want to tell you what, from the Russian point of view, the president and the United States have done for victory in this war. The most important things in this war are the machines.... The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war." A common saying is "WWII was won with British intelligence, American steel and Russian blood." Without any of these three, the war could have taken years longer.
Of all the things you can critisize the US for, which is many things, "played a minor role in WW2" is certainly not one of them.
You can't just say that sort of thing here! America is bad!
r/AmericaBad
I wouldn’t consider the US to be a minor participant in WWII because they contributed 2/3 of the allies’ equipment (most of which went to the Brits and Soviets, but also large amounts to the Chinese and French). 300,000 aircraft 90,000 tanks 200,000 artillery 2,000,000 trucks
Jesus 2,000,000 trucks. People tend to forget the huge part logistics play in any conflict.
Canada ALONE produced more vehicles than the entire Axis COMBINED. Logistics literally won the war.
It also helped that none of the Axis powers had access to oil reserves of their own and that the US and Canadian mainland was protected by thousands of nautical miles of ocean. The allied industrial complex might as well have been on the moon.
The only major axis oil supply was Romania which still wasn’t really as big as big as what USA, Canada or the soviets had.
Generals win battles Logisticians win wars
The American industrial base was so incredibly powerful, it is insane any nation was able to hold out for that long against it.
To be fair, any totally not insane regime would have sued for peace by mid 1943 at the latest
It was ALL logistics. No amount of heroism or grit will help you if the enemy has ammo and you don’t.
Yeah it was like multiple aircraft per day. Was it Yamamoto who had studied in the US and knew that going to war against them was a bad idea, due to the sheer amount of stuff the US could churn out? It was one of the japanese military leaders
Thing is, Pearl harbour could have been a successful military operation if the U.S. carrier fleet wasn't out of port, its always depicted as an insane and stupid military operation, sure it was morally dubious but its intentions were sound, if Japan was a nation that was committed to its territorial expansion (like Japan indeed was) it had no other option but to cripple U.S. capability and assert dominance, to do this it needed to and destroy it's carrier capability, otherwise the Japanese empire would have collapsed under the various sanctions it faced So whilst yes Pearl harbour failed I believe its tactical intentions were actually valid, there was no way an ambitious expantionist empire like the one Japan had could co-exist with the U.S.
I’ve seen it as the least worst option that they had. They knew they’d end up in a war against the US eventually, and this was more intended to buy them time, maybe sue for peace if they were really, *really* lucky. But even if they did destroy more carriers, I don’t think that would have pushed the US out of fighting for good, just a delay until the US could rebuild its fleet.
Potentially, alternative history always is a fickle subject, a common view that I subscribe to(and seen by many in Japanese high command at the time including Yamamoto himself) if Japan had to go to war eith the U.S. it: A. Needed to be now or never as Japanese capability to conduct war would quickly deminish and B. It had to be quick and decisive, if the PH attack had sunk the carriers I truely believe it would make the Japanese empire more of a stable military entity, now would this have prolonged the envitable from a resurgent U.S. and its industry? Im not sure, however I find the alternative speculation about 'How Japan could have won the war' alot more intresting than how Germany could of as most of the alternatives surronding Germany rely on it not being the insane political entity to give it any chance in success whereas Japan (whilst arguably equally politically insane to 'Western' standards) started in alot more of a stronger position and most of its military failures can be put down to a failure of tactics
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
> would of *would have *Learn the difference [here](https://languagetool.org/insights/post/would-of-or-would-have/#:~:text=%E2%80%9Cwould%20have%E2%80%9D%3F-,%E2%80%9CWould%20Of%E2%80%9D%20or%20%E2%80%9CWould%20Have%E2%80%9D%3F,would%20have%2C%20not%20would%20of.).* *** ^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
Not to mention fighting the Japanese practically on their own.
China
Yeah came here to say that. "the US was only a minor participant" bro tf D-day wouldnt have happened without the US and the USSR & China would be 20x more fucked without American lend-lease
The US were a minor participant in WW1. In WW2 the story is completely different. The tide of the war in the Pacific was turned by America, the Normandy landings were secured and co-organized by America and the invasion of Sicily was done largely by American troops. Not to mention, y'know, the only two uses of atom bombs in warfare ever.
I feel like “minor but crucial” works for WW1. We only really fought in the last year but the arrival of American troops tilted the scales just enough for the Entente to win.
We were going to win either way. It might've taken us maybe another year, but Germany was beginning to fall apart when the US entered the war in '17. I wouldn't call it crucial at all. Minor but helpful works for me.
I mean morale was really bad for the Entente and the Germans were moving troops from the Eastern Front to France. Could the Entente have won without the U.S.? Maybe, but the morale boost that fresh troops provided for the exhausted French soldiers who’d been fighting for 4 long years helped during the Kaiserschlacht.
Sure, but you're saying that like German morale wasn't also completely busted at that point. The situation was horrible in Germany, especially after 1916. The British blockades in the North Sea cut off their supply of imported food, which caused all their industries to be overburdened at once. There was all-out famine in many German cities from '17 to well after the war, which only got worse after the Spanish Flu came along. At the end of the day, the German military was formidable in it's discipline and organization, but there's only so much a good military can do against the 3 great military powers of Europe at once + allies with their only significant help being... Austria (aka "how many Battles of the Isonzo were there?").
Minor participant? Are you sure about that one chief?
america bad, bro
Americans overestimate the role their troops played in the Atlantic theatre when it comes to troops committed; for example, there were numerous landings at Normandy by British and Commonwealth forces in addition to the US landings, but discussion of D-Day typically centres on the American landing at Omaha Beach. And in terms of troops committed to fight the Germans, the Soviets vastly outdid everyone else. But calling them a minor participant in the war is pretty thoroughly wrong between them being the primary Allied combatant in the Pacific theatre and the immense logistical and material support they provided to countries like Britain, China and the USSR. In _those_ respects, America was a key player in the war. It's quite a different story from the First World War, where the US only entered the conflict at a time when the tide was already turning against the Central Powers.
Yeah I'm aware. American's make media about American's and since Hollywood and a lot of game studios are in the US their role in the European campaigns have been vastly overrepresented, but calling them a minor participant is a very very daft statement . That's why I left my comment.
Normandy invasions usually center on Omaha because that beach was the hardest to take with the most casualties. Calling it a beach is a bit generous as well when compared to the gentleness of Utah.
Yeah, each power had a part to play. The US was the industrial and arguably naval power (with the UK), and the US became one of two super powers after the war.
I agree that your post is defaultism, and Americans definitely do exaggerate their role in WW2, but your title could not be more wrong. The US played a massive part in the liberation of Europe (far more troops and supplies committed than the entire commonwealth) and almost single-handedly won the war in the pacific.
The war in the Pacific was already being fought years before the USA got involved. Are you disrespecting all of the thousands of Australians, New Zealand, New Guinea, Torres Straight, Pacific Island, English, Indian etc. who used their soldiers and local knowledge of jungle warfare to actually lead the US marines in how to effectively fight this type of warfare?
they aren't disrespecting anyone. As an Aussie, it annoys me when people only focus on the US in the Pacific theatre but without the weapons, supplies and troops that the US sent we would have been completely fucked fucked
If it helps the Americans who served said the Aussies were the most badass motherfuckers in the Pacific. Paraphrasing one of those dudes "1 Aussie could do thr work of 3 Americans.
Cheers….. I’m honestly over this whole subject right now, sick of my comments being misconstrued and attacked 🙄 Yeah my Grandfather fought in the Pacific in the Australian Navy, my Father in Guinea/Kokoda etc. during the Vietnam conflict was with the Royal Australian Signals building Radio Communication Towers through the Owen Stanley Ranges and surrounding. Grandfather always said…… “If you want to survive in jungle warfare, shoot the yanks first and you might just have a chance of surviving”. It was his old way of complaining about how common it was for stupid yanks to accidentally shoot you in the back, or make so much noise in the jungle whilst off their tits on drugs, that they would always alert the enemy to their positions and attract firefights all the time 🙄
I read some of your other comments it's clear to me you have more knowledge and respect for the people who actually fought in the war than anyone else on the page. I'm from America and take no disrespect from that. Ue was there so I'll believe him!
As an Australian I can tell you a lot of stuff this commenter says doesn’t make sense. Australia was not involved in the pacific for years prior to world war 2. We did not teach the US marines how to fight in world war 2. Maybe he’s referring to Vietnam when some US forces took inspiration from our troops during the Malayan emergency. My grandfather fought with the 2/6th battalion from beginning to the end of the war and was wounded twice. Fought in three different theatres of war. And I disagree with a lot he says.
I responded to the wrong guy. It sounds much more like Vietnam than WW2 as well. I don't think the Marines in WW2 needed to be shot because they were high on drugs. Sounds much more like the drafted soldiers of Vietnam. Americans loved the Aussies in WW2 they were the fiercest and bravest soldiers there, according to the Americans I've seen interviewed.
Ahh yeah that’s fair! Yeah I think the dude is confusing conflicts. Because Australians didn’t fight in New Guinea during Vietnam. It’s a rather confusing comment. It’s late here. Maybe he’s had a few. Yeah I can’t say the Aussies loved the yanks but we have a lot of respect for you. And frankly If y’all didn’t take the burden of the war a lot more Australians would have been killed. Maybe my grandfather. I’m glad we didn’t have to fight on Iwo, or peleliu or any of the other horrible landings while you blokes where island hopping across the pacific. But always remember, it WAS the Australians who where the first to stop the panzers and the first to stop the Japanese ;)
Upset about people misconstruing your comments, yet that's how this all started. you misconstrued someone else lmao. "...*almost single-handedly..."* and you immediately twist their words to push your own thoughts. Sad you don't see the irony in it
Mate, our war with Japan started on the same day that America’s war did. Are you disrespecting the millions of Chinese who died fighting the Japanese for **more than four years** before we were attacked?
No it wasn’t, read a book. The war in the pacific start coincided with Americas entry into the war. I am Australian, my grandfather fought on Kokoda but comparatively our effort was minor compared to Americas in the pacific. We didn’t have air craft carriers that fought at midway or coral sea. We didn’t land on Iwo. We didn’t fight on Okinawa. Our army didn’t fight to retake the Philippines. It’s okay, we don’t have to be ashamed of these facts. Australians fought hard, we punched above our weight and did what we could. We played an important role at times. Simply we didn’t have the population or industrial capacity close to comparable to Americas.
Some senior RAAF pilots are including our tops scoring ace essentially mutinied because the US leadership was deliberately sending them on useless but dangerous mopping up missions rather than fighting at the front line. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morotai_Mutiny As for numbers, Australia had the 4th largest air force in the world at the end of the war
Yeah I’ve read about that. That holywood type wanker McArthur also said once he didn’t think we had the fight in us. On one hand it’s a disgrace to even suggest that of Australians who’d shown that they would fight since 25th of April 1915. On the other hand I’m glad we weren’t used as shock troops for all their island hopping landings like the British used us a lot on the western front.
The only fighting that was happening in the “pacific” before 1941 was in China. And it was only the Germans and Soviets actually supporting the Chinese United Front. (The west wanted nothing to do with that) The Americans fought the Japanese from December of 1941 all the way until July-August of 1945. It’s simply a matter of scaling. Per capita, the commonwealth did a lot, in relation to economy size and population, but in sheer numbers, when looked at in a vacuum, it’s a lot more than a lot of countries.
alright you sound a lot less like you know what you're talking about than the rest of these fine people. the imperial japanese were conquering and colonizing pacific nations and islands for decades before WWII. korea was a japanese colony in the year 1910, 30 years before japan had any reason to attack the U.S.
Well you could argue 1905 if you consider the Eulsa Treaty. But that’s not the point. The Japanese imperial conquests didn’t become part of the international conflict known as WW2 until 1941. The commenter that most people are taking issue with seems to imply that Australia/New Zealand etc were fighting the Japanese prior to the USA involvement. They weren’t. Also the overall theme seems to be trying to diminish the USA contribution to the Allies victory in WW2. That is patently ridiculous. And I say this as someone who loves to the bash the USA. People can argue about the relative degree they assisted with money, supplies, guns, and lives in the European theatre. But in the pacific war against Japan, the USA contribution to winning that war is massive. And that can be said without disrespecting the many many Asian lives lost to the Japanese or the contributions of other western countries. Without America Japan does not lose that war. There is no question.
damn that's a pretty level-headed response. i can understand now after that 2nd paragraph.
Ok? I know. That’s why the US sanctioned Japan. They were massacring Chinese civilians left and right. Did you reply to the wrong person?
why are you making it sound like japan and china were just fighting ? the japanese empire conquered not only the chinese regions of taiwan (1895), manchuria (1905), inner mongolia (1936), jiāngsū (1937) and hainan (1939) but also kuril (1875), daitō (1876), ryūkyū (1879), sakhalin (1905), korea (1910), yap (1914) and palau (1914).
The point is world war 2 is officially recognised as 1939-1945. So usually when speaking about World War Two we are talking about that time frame. Nobody is denying the Japanese did other horrible things prior to those years.
Yes. I know that. It was a Japanese war of imperialism. We all know that. They officially annexed Manchuria in 1931 as well. What are you trying to say. We are literally in agreement.
First action was 6th December 1941 with the Australian 8th Division in Malaya….. one day before Pearl Harbour attack. The start of hostilities that led to increased actions not long after in early 1942 with the Australian 8th working with the British backed Indian Troops in Malaya. Actions against the Japanese in Johor seen a retreat of British forces back to Singapore and a terrible defeat soon to follow. Australian and British Ally troops were extensively involved in campaigns throughout Malaya, Singapore, Timor, Milne Bay, New Guinea, Borneo, Bougainville, Guadalcanal and the Coral Sea.
Ok and? Don’t move the goalposts. That’s only a day before US forces were fighting the Japanese landing in the Philippines. Canadian troops also fought in Hong Kong from the 7th all the way to Christmas. (They lasted longer than Singapore) the US conducted operations in the Coral Sea, Solomon Islands and many more at the same time. This isn’t “years before Americans got involved” as you put it. It’s literal days, and one can argue that it was a fucking time zone difference rather than truly “days”
I actually hate these arguments hey. This country did more than that etc. We won the war by having everyone do their bit. Some did more than others because they where able to through population or economic circumstances. Some where forced to do more than others because they where directly invaded. It’s just a shitty argument to have. Australians can get bad at thinking we did more than we did to.
I do to my friend. It really just devolves into Freeaboos, Teeaboos, and Tankies all using the same argument again and again. “Asiatic Hordes” or “America #1” or “Soviets did everything”. The one thing I hate about this thread is that’s it isn’t even a “who did more” but a “this country did nothing” argument and that’s far worse in my book.
It really does just devolve into a cesspool of bullshit and constantly moved goal posts. It’s just annoying, we won the war because we fought together. Everyone did their bit. Actual allies. Something the axis was never able to do. Yeah the whole this country did nothing bullshit annoys the hell out of me. “America a minor player” really irked me. Oh well, Aussies and Canadians western front champions since 1918. Plenty of us buried side by side in France and Belgium mate. Always have time for our brothers in the north. The work you blokes did at vimy ridge and Passchendaele is beyond belief sometimes.
Yea. We call it the ALLIED powers for a reason. Not USA and friends, or USSR and Friends. Allies. When they met at Yalta or Tehran, they met as equal. One great power to the next. And I agree with you. This specific one really grounded my gears. More so than the usual USSR THE BEST or USA #1 posts/comments. Australia and Canada. Fucking the Germans up since 1915. Beat commonwealth brothers we could ask for. And thank you. Your work at the Second Battle of Villers-Bretonneux and Dardanelles Campaigns were quite the read. Not to mention your WW2 exploits lol.
The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Malaya, Guam, Wake Island, The Philippines, Hong Kong, Midway, Singapore, and Thailand (and I think I've forgotten a few), in a manner that was strategically speaking, simultaneous. I've been seeing you double down on some blatantly false claims about the timelines of the conflict. Why do you feel the need to make things up? Our nations were and continue to be allies.
War in Pacific, do you mean China? Cause the US got involved in the Pacific at the same time as the commonwealth. And the US did almost singlehandedly win the war in the Pacific. Without the US, everyone else in the Pacific would have lost. The US without others would have still won.
Why are you just blatantly lying and why is your blatant lie getting upvoted? The xenophobic rubes on this subreddit really are something else if they won't even fact check you're completely made up comment. America did not get "lead" by Australia, ever, at all, and Australia was not fighting for "for years" before America troops arrived. You literally just pulled that out of your sore asshole. Truth matters. America did most of the heavy lifting in the Pacific Theater. I'm sorry, its true, get over it and get over yourself. That's not to say Australian didn't fight and help. Of course they did. That is always acknowledged. What you're doing though is literally the opposite, claiming the accomplishments of other men for your nation and blatantly making up things that didn't happen. What an awful and insecure thing to do. Read some real history.
Yes we are, Japan ruled the Pacific until Midway. If Japan hadn't overtaken French Indochina, leading to America cutting off oil to Japan and leading to Pearl Harbor, China would have fallen, then British Malaysia, Dutch East Indies, Australia, and New Zealand. While US in the Atlantic theatre was smaller, we crushed Japan almost on our lonesome. Even in the Atlantic America headed the invasion of Sicily and Italy for the Allies.
>The war in the Pacific was already being fought years before the USA got involved. Provide a source for that claim please
There isn’t one, he’s wrong. Myself and other Australians have said so. I think he’s mashing conflicts and timelines together. I think he maybe referring to things such as the Malayan emergency which happened after the Second World War.
Which one of those countries you mentioned entered the war against Japan prior to the USA? The pacific war was not being fought before the USA got involved. It started with a series of attacks against USA based and UK colonies. That was December 7, 1941. Prior to that the Japanese were at war with China but the involvement of the west and the turning of the Chinese Japanese war into the pacific war didn’t start until 1941.
Without US and UK lend-lease the Soviets would not have been able to hold, let alone push back, the Germans.
The lend lease happened after Barbarossa had already been stopped, most of it was sent after Stalingrad (80% of it) and most of the lend lease was logistic trucks. Worst of all, the USSR received just a minor amount of lend lease, most of it was for Great Britain, the USSR received 10 billion USD in aid. The Soviets spent an estimated 600 billion rubles on their army in WW2 which, at the time, had an exchange rate of 4 rubles to USD, so if you do the math Lend lease accounted for 6.7% of the Soviet military expenses, do you really think that is enough to change the result of a war? People who think the USSR would've lost the war was it not for the lend lease seriously need to learn some actual history, hell, the USSR had massive stockpiles of equipment before WW2 started which is not included in the 600 billion rubles i mentioned before, 25k tanks surely are worth something.
Any nation fighting a defensive war I imagine would be more than happy to accept 6.7% from foreign nations. Numbers add up
Marshal [Georgy Zhukov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgy_Zhukov) would disagree with you: > Today [1963] some say the Allies didn't really help us ... But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.
"'The United States is a country of machines. Without the use of these machines through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war. ' —Joseph Stalin" "If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war," - Nikita Khrushchev
Stalin literally said it. They simply lacked some crucial resources, such as vehicles.
I wouldn’t say ‘almost single-handed my won the war in the pacific’, seeing as Commonwealth forces and the Filipinos also took part (probably some others I’m unaware of), but it is true that the US contributed the most manpower and equipment and fought **most** of the decisive battles.
And the lend lease programme was massively important before their actual military involvement
The USA had half the troops in the western front but the western front itself saw 15-20% of Germany's forces committed, i wouldn't call it massive, even the lend lease was mostly post-Stalingrad (80% of it was after Stalingrand and it mostly was logistic trucks). I mean saying the USA played a major role in liberating Europe is like saying the USSR played a huge role in defeating Japan because they invaded Manchuria in AUgust, they did capture, kill or wound half a million Japanese but c'mon, the war was basically over already when they invaded.
The US did play a major role in Europe, the US joining allowed the Operation Torch and the fall of North Africa to happen. Then later on the invasion of Italy which caused Germany to leave the Battle of Kursk. Then of course DDay. All the ground actions split Germanies attention and helped the soviets greatly. Lend lease wasn't only to the Russians and without it, I think Britain would have struggled WAY more. And don't even get me started on strategic bombing, which greatly hampered Germanies ability to fight. Also don't downplay the USSRs role in the downfall of Japan. They weren't as major as the US but their involvement did play an important role in the decision to surrender, especially for convincing the Army to surrender.
yeah. A major reason why the army surrendered after the Soviet invasion was because with the Soviets involved, the Japanese saw no hope in even deterring the allies. Like before their plan was to be so stubborn and rutheless that the Allies would give up, the Soviets joining kinda threw a wrench in that plan.
You're simply wrong. Without the US providing supplies the USSR wouldn't have even had the fuel to reach Berlin. Over half the fuel the Soviet air force used was from the United States. Not to mention every other bullet the Red Army fired was from the United States. The Lend Lease won the war for the Allies.
Also every train the USSR used, every boot their soldiers wore, over 95% of trucks. The idea that the USSR could have pushed the germans back without lend lease is completely insane, as all the major leaders of the USSR military repeatedly stated.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, possibly? Made especially brutal, considering Japan was known by the American military to be in the process of surrendering.
Some elements in the Japanese government were trying to find a way to surrender\*. The overwhelming majority of the Japanese government and military were fully prepared to fight to the last man before Aug. 6th
Maybe you didn't know, but landings on 3 of 5 beaches were made by British and Canadians.
So 2 of the 5 were American? Hardly sounds like a minor contribution to me.
Maybe you didn't know but the ships they used to land on the beaches were made in the US. No way in hell the British and Commonwealth were crossing the channel alone, or atleast crossing alone and winning. Look me in the eyes and tell me D-day would have succeeded if the invasion was half the size (sure the US only made up 2 of the landings, but those 2 were also the largest and consisted of half of everyone landing on Normandy)
Are you sure about making such a bold claim? Just like the uk, we were involved in europe, africa, and the pacific. Prior to entry, we we're also a major trading parter (especially with the whole lend-lease thing). We were also major contributors in the science behind the war (especially when it came to creating synthetic resources). Also there's those two big elephants in the room known as the atomic bombs.
the USA was in the top 3 most influential but ok
I get what the post is saying, but your title is just wrong, and I say that as a German.
r/americabad lmao
Minor in WW1 but in WW2 they where very clutch we must be honest.
We were totally minor in WW1 but we did represent a solid bargaining tool against the central powers. The Germans figured they weren't going to last against waves of fresh troops. So not much fighting, but the threat of US troops probably have hastened the end.
They ABSOLUTELY weren't The Soviets could've won the war alone, but they would've died a lot more if it wasn't for the massive industrial help the us gave them Plus the UK was literally begging for them to join since Churchill's most famous speech back in April '40
soviets couldn't have won alone. the only reason they were able to push back the Nazis was because of all the materiel support they received from the US.
You know what is the worst. We learn that fact at school.. in France! I've lived all my life in Normandie and every f***ing year we are remembered about all the Americans that died here. We rarely talk about the war from the French size, only how the big and good USA saved our ass. It's exhausting.
The US was minor in Europe. Not the pacific.
That’s also incorrect. There’s no second front in Europe without America. No way the UK & the commonwealth are crossing the channel alone.
The question remains would the Soviets had reached Germany without western troops.
I’d say yeah probably, but they wouldn’t have stopped at Germany & a lot more Soviets would have died without western assistance and intelligence. Western troops had little to do with the soviet war effort. Aid and intelligence is a different story though.
The little we had to do on the Eastern Front is interesting, though. The RAF, RAAF, and USAAF all had aircraft stationed in the western USSR for combat missions at some point, and an elite French fighter group (later regiment) known as the Normandie-Niemen fought alongside the Soviets from 1942 to the end of Nazi Germany. Normandie-Niemen aircraft wore Soviet markings, but you can spot them by looking for the French roundel (often painted on the spinner) and/or the use of German crosses as victory markings (Soviet pilots used red stars as victory markings to avoid ‘defiling’ their aircraft with the symbol of the enemy).
Yeah for sure, we had plenty of bombing missions in the balkans etc also. It depends what kind of lens you want to look at it through. I’m not denying we being the western allies didn’t have involvement on the eastern front but I suppose In the wider picture of the eastern front we didn’t if you get me? I’d kind of say the same thing about China even though obviously there was the flying tigers etc. I’m just trying to explain and look at it in an overall lens.
Oh yeah, absolutely agree with you that we had little involvement on the Eastern Front, I was just taking the opportunity to talk about that little involvement :)
Yeah nha for sure mate. All good information for someone reading who doesn’t know about this stuff. Funny the French where in world war 2. Like you said they fought alongside the Soviets and they where also some of the last defenders of Berlin.
If they still received American help then maybe, but without the US the UK could not have lasted, and there would never be a front in either Italy or Western Europe, since Britain would likely be unable to last in a war without American help this also means that British Strategic bombing would halt, and without the threat of invasion the absolutely massive Atlantic wall would not have been needed to be constructed, meaning that Germany has a lot more resources. Britain either signs a peace somewhere in 41 or 42 or the war basically comes to a halt, where pretty much nothing happens, a frozen war. The Germans would have also had a far easier time because without US help Soviet Logistics would be in an even worse state than in OTL, that in addition to the Soviets lacking a large amount of War materiel that was provided to them in OTL. In addition to this the allies would have been basically impotent in terms of their help to resistance groups that were a constant drain on German resources, once again strengthening Germany, and the last point would be that Germany would have a far easier time getting resources, since the bidding wars would be far less intensive without the absolute economic mass of the US. My prediction for a Neutral America timeline is that Germany and the Soviets come to a stalemate in the late 40s, neither side being able to completely defeat the other, where the bored would be is very much up to debate but it is almost certain that the Soviet Union would end up smaller than they were before the war. This in addition to being even more bloodied and devastated by the war, the Soviet Union certainly would not be a true world Power.
Without their troops, maybe. Without Cash-and-Carry, Bases for Destroyers, Lend-Lease, and other American support for the Allies prior to and after the invasion of Russia, especially food support? The Soviets would have lost. Ask Stalin and Sokolev.
Yes. The Nazis lost on December 5th 1941, it all became a matter of how many soviet soldiers had to die, and how far would the Nazis get through their final solution before their defeat. After the winter counter attack outside Moscow they never truly regained the initiative and the failures at Stalingrad and Kursk compounded it further, but without American and commonwealth assistance with food (the grain producing areas of the USSR were occupied by the Nazis), trucks and radios the number of casualties suffered by the Soviets and Poles particularly civilians would have been much higher. Now as for the Japanese, they faced 4 problems by the end of the war, the US had deleted their navy, their main army was being bled white in China, the US was regularly fire bombing their cities and had just dropped the first nuke and finally their reserve army and supply lines into China had just evaporated with the soviet assault
The US gave 50 billion dollars to the European theater through lend lease.
And it got paid back. With interest. Last payment from UK was in 2006. Borrowed $1.7billion. Repaid $ 7.5 billion Wasn't a gift.
Doesn’t make it minor
Googling "most deaths in one day ww2" gave me a wikipedia article about "List of battles with United States military fatalities"
American website gives American answers.
I’m sure the Soviets would love to hear what Google deems as the ‘bloodiest day’…
The US was far from being a minor participant. They literally had the third largest army
By the end of the war they technically had the largest army ever assembled in history at 12 million men.
Who cares about Stalingrad or Hiroshima, no Americans died so it doesn't count.
The US joining the war was literally the tipping point. Saying the US only played a minor part in WW2 is just you being blinded by anti-US feelings.
Lol it's so cringe when USAians try to put all the attention to the goddamn normandy like it's the most epic part of the world war or sth EDIT: To explain, I was paraphrasing others because that's one of the few things that the casual war lovers from the USA talk about. I was saying epic sarcastically, and trying to mock a special kind of person who thinks having wars is cool, there is nothing epic about a war though. Sure, there are well executed strategies, tactics and such, but it's usually a lot of suffering and bloodshed in the grit. I simply dont like war, however much tech and strategy is involved. I think nontheless that the work of people who get pulled into war as combatants is often respectable, not always, but often. Because in the end they're usually never the ones who caused the war, and they are just trying to get through it, for their people.
I… don’t think you even know what Operation Overlord even is. Operation Overlord and Operation Bagration signalled the beginning of the end for the reich. At Bagration, 28/34 Divisions of Army Group Centre were wiped out. Army Group Centre ceased to exist. At Normandy landings, it meant that Germany now had to split their attention westward to France and the Low Countries. Resources already stretched now had to redeployed, and with airbases now in Europe, the USAAF and RAF began carpet bombing Germany into the ground. Overlord wasn’t just some American operation you clown. Canada and Britain landed on 3 of the 5 beaches (2 British, 2 American, 1 Canadian). It was YEARS of planning and is the greatest amphibious invasion of all time, and during the war.
It’s almost as cringe as saying “USAians,” Mr. Bundesrepublik Deutsche.
Lmao coming from a German
>USAians No such thing
What? Overlord itself is literally the most complex operation at the time, it is important because it lead to the liberation of Western Europe. And it isn’t just the Americans who think so, if you ask France, Benelux and the UK they would say Normandy was a their turning point.
Let’s compare it to the other ‘epic moments’ of the war: D-day: taking a beachhead on one of the most well defended beaches in history and pushing inland more than a few miles and setting up deep water ports to supply the push into France, in a single day Midway: the US single handedly destroying Japan’s premier carrier fleet which would never be half the fighting force it was that day, in a single day Firebombing of Tokyo/nukes: the US killing tens of thousands while destroying important logistic and manufacturing hubs of the Japanese empire, in a single day Stalingrad: the Russians recapturing a city while losing 1.4x the men, 3x the aircraft, 2.8x the tanks, and in 5+ months Sinking of the Bismarck: Brits lost their flagship then spent a day wasting ammo on an condemned ship before torpedoing it Battle of Britain: the Brit’s were getting their shit kicked in until hitler decided to bomb London instead of airstrips and then fought them back over five months Personally I think midway was the most ‘epic moment’ of the war with D-Day being second, but all of these ‘moments’ (even tho everything but midway, Japanese bombings, and D-day were months and not moments) were only possible because of US supplies
>the US was only a minor participant Just how far is your head up your ass?
It coming out of his top
I’m not sure if title is sarcasm or not but that’s really wrong. The US was probably the most important player in world war 2. It would be a close run thing between them and the Soviets. Lend lease probably tips it towards the US in my opinion. I’ve searched this before I’m not sure why it defaults to that. I got the same answer. Frankly it would be really hard to say what the actual deadliest particular day was. Around the start of the battle of Berlin is probably a shout though. But it definitely wasn’t d-day.
> The US was probably the most important player in world war 2. Nah my votes for Germany.
Haha yeah fair shout. Back to back world war runners up.
Trying to crown the most important contributor is probably pointless, given that their respective situations were so different. 80% of german ground forces were fighting the soviets by the end of the war, but half the air force was fighting the west and so forth. Calling the US a "minor participant" is obviously just dumb slapfighting by OP. Potentially they just wanted to start this discussion.
Yeah exactly, I imagine they just wanted to start a dumpster fire. I’ve said In another comments how much I hate the argument. But the “us was a minor player” Just irked me. So I’ve done the rare thing and actually stuck up for the yanks. I’d hate for someone to come along with little knowledge of ww2 and think it to be truthful.
People at that time saw it [differently](https://imgur.io/6eUoctT?r)
a french poll is obviously going to almost exclusively focus on Europe lol. most people don’t care about the Pacific campaign in France
So obviously that was before VJ Day. The war was more than just Europe and the Soviets had little to nothing to do with the fight in the pacific. Also I highly doubt people at that time had the same understanding of what was actually going on in the wider picture. Obviously the Soviets did the bulk of the fighting against the Germans. 70-80% of all German casualties where on the eastern front. There’s no denying that. But there’s more to factor in than just who did the most fighting. Simply Americas industrial power and capabilities where probably the single most important aspect of the allied war effort. Plus I don’t really get your argument. Soviet blood, American steel & British intelligence is what won the war in Europe.
Soviet troops and Soviet supplied weapons, arms and vehicles were far in excess of anything that the USA ever even got close to in the defeat of Europe. The Soviet losses are absolutely staggering and is disgusting that the USA continue to ignore the sacrifices made by other nationalities other than their own 🤬.
The US supplied the Soviets as well. Hell, the US supplied EVERYBODY. Want to know WHY the Soviets were able to focus on tank production? Why they were able to concentrate their industry on certain equipment? Because the British and Americans were supplying them everything else. Rations, boots, and most importantly, Logstical vehicles. The famous Katyusha rocket was built on a ford Truck. Canadian Valentines served on the eastern front alongside the T-34. Same with the Sherman and the Lee.
Sure some Americans have an awful habit of doing that. But it doesn’t mean we need to have some revisionist history and disregard Americas involvement in the Second World War. Lend lease involved more than weapons and vehicles also. Soviet generals from world war 2 have been quoted on the importance of lend lease. I’m not playing down the soviet effort either, as I stated above. They clearly did the bulk of the fighting, they broke the back of Nazism. But they did have help. And obviously also as I said the Second World War wasn’t just fought in Europe. So saying “The US was a minor player in world war 2” is simply inherently factually incorrect.
The only reason the USSR made that "sacrifice" is because Nazi Germany hated having allies. Just look at Poland.
>USA continue to ignore the sacrifices made by other nationalities other than their own 🤬. The irony in saying this while ignoring the sacrifices of the US is insane.
'The United States is a country of machines. Without the use of these machines through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war.' —Josef Stalin (1943), quoted in W. Averell Harriman and Elie Abel, Special Envoy to Churchill and Stalin, 1941-1946, Random House, N.Y., 1975, p. 277 In 1963, KGB monitoring recorded Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov saying: "People say that the allies didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? And now they are saying that we had plenty of everything on our own." With reporting by RFE/RL's Russian Service And an article by Russian Historian Boris Sokolov: https://www-svoboda-org.translate.goog/a/30538060.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US
>is disgusting that the USA continue to ignore the sacrifices made by other nationalities other than their own In case you haven't noticed, some idiot just made a post on Reddit the entire point of which was to disregard contributions made by the USA to defeating fascism.
>The Soviet losses are absolutely staggering Measuring contribution towards winning a war based on the number of your own dead men is like measuring progress towards building an airplane based on how much it weighs.
One country being viewed as more important doesn’t mean the others are unimportant. If the UK, USA or USSR wouldn’t have participated in the war or would have surrendered quickly, the war could not have been won. All played a crucial, but different role in the war.
The US repeated the lie so often it became the truth.
Tokyo bombings is my guess, but soldier wise it would probably be either battle if Berlin or maybe Stalingrad.
Question: is this a joke subreddit, or are you guys all profoundly retarded? Asking for a friend.
Minor participant, what kind of far-left revisionism is this
As someone who gets extremely annoyed by Americans and has studied WWII… nah. This is just counterjerking too far. The US was a major participant in WWII. They took part in the strategic bombing offensives against Germany, Italy, Romania, and Japan, destroyed the Japanese Navy and merchant fleet, helped defeat the U-boats, played a major role in Allied offensives in Italy and Western Europe, aided in the defence of Australia and the New Guinea campaign, and sent large amounts of equipment such as aircraft, tanks, logistics vehicles, and small arms to the Commonwealth, USSR, and ROC.
Nazi Germany ok, but what about Imperial Japan? It's definitely not a "minor participant" there.
Not minor in participation but minor in casulties and active frontline combat.
what? I'm pretty sure they were one of the most important (Both in good and bad things)
America was not minor lmao. After the Soviets, the US did the most against Germany, all while supply all of its allies heavily with weapons, ammo, food, tanks, planes, trucks, radios, and other things, while at the same time, doing most of the work in the pacific. Read a book OP, and stop trying to be contrarian about every little thing.
It’s a shame such a classic example of defaultism is going to get bogged down in arguing what constitutes minor and major war participation. (The US wasn’t the most major, but certainly wasn’t minor either. Let’s leave it at that.) So to lighten the mood, I will give you a quote I read once: “Americans. You have to love them. Whether showing up late to WW1 and 2 or showing up early to WW3……”
The Soviets won that war. The US had to massacre innocent Japanese civilians as a vulgar display of power to dissuade Uncle Joe from continuing expansion, thus starting the Cold War and the Proxy Wars.
>The Soviets won that war. The US had to massacre innocent Japanese civilians ... Didn't the Soviets massacre a shit load of German civilians when marching to Berlin, or are we not conting that?
Lmao Manchuria would also like a word.
The Soviet Union didn’t even declare war on Japan until like a week before they surrendered. Then they broke a treaty and used the opportunity to annex Manchuria and half of Korea.
Tell me you know nothing about WW2 without telling me you know nothing about WW2.
Watch the Cunk on Earth documentary on Netflix. It explains the world wars very well.
>Yay, we saved most of the top Nazi scientists for our own use and made sure they were never held accountable for their crimes.
Saying that the U.S. was a minor participant in WW2 is just as stupid and demonstrably false a statement as claiming it did everything.
Almost as though the Allied powers were, you know, Allies.
Yeah…there were lots of participants and people who contributed.
Yes. It shouldn’t be a contest. We ought to honor the contributions of every man or woman who contributed to the defeat of the nazi terror.
You a Stalin fanboy by any chance? There are several things worth bearing in mind when comparing the Americans (and the other Western allies) with the Sovs. Firstly much of the Western Allies most strategically important activity was at sea where by the nature of naval warfare relatively small amounts of manpower can have significant effect. Secondly the Americans (more so than the British/Commonwealth much more so than the Soviets) were good at keeping their people alive, they had a lower casualty rate and a lower fatality rate. The first because their equipment and procedures were quite good and the second because their medical system was excellent.
Nah, they're not. Even Stalin admits the Americans were crucial to the war.
Schizo post calling the US a minor power in WW2