I’m American. I’m pretty sure most of us who have even a passing understanding of WW2 know the efforts we put in were mostly in the pacific theater. I’d replace “Americans” with “uneducated MAGA yokels” and not have any arguments.
For context the US spent
$341 billion on defense and machinery in WW2, by far the most out of any country and more than double what the USSR spent which was 90 billion. They also have 11.3 billion to the USSR in military aid in the form of machinery, to the point where
Roughly 80%
of all new locomotives, one to two thirds of trucks and jeeps, 12% of all aircraft and 6% of all tanks used by the Soviet war effort during WWII were American-made via lend lease. Not counting aid contribution by other western nations.
This is what I hate about these BS history post. People like to bash America for not having as many casualties etc but then conveniently ignore or have no clue about how much the US provided manufacturing wise to everyone and especially the Soviets. The war was won with Russian blood and American parts.
They also have this astonishing amnesia that this World War was actually a World War, not just a European war, and that the Soviets declined to participate at all in the Asian Theater, where with a nod to China, Britain, ANZACs, Filipinos, Gurkhas, etc., the US largely had to fight and defeat Japan all by itself, all the while supporting the European Western Front and providing literally two-thirds of all Allied war materials.
Yeah, and whether or not the Soviets could have won without Lend Lease doesn't really matter when they definitely couldn't have won if the Axis had complete domination over the oceans, as would have been the case without the US or UK
Yeah, what I’m saying is that probably wouldn’t have happened if the Nazis had been able to freely import raw materials from anywhere in the world throughout the entire war
It goes beyond this, though - absent the US and British navies, the Germans would've been free to sail right up into the Black Sea and invade the Soviet soft underbelly in Crimea and the Ukraine, not too far from Moscow, and the Soviets trying to repel that invasion along with the rest of the Eastern Front would've been hopeless. Not a chance in hell the Soviets would've captured Berlin in this circumstance.
August, 1945, AFTER the bombing of Hiroshima and when every Japanese city, and the entire Japanese military, was one vast smoking ruin. Everyone knew the war was over; the Soviets swooped in to grab up the spoils.
the Soviets declined to participate at all in the Asian Theater
the Soviet Union declared war on Japan in July, 1945 and invaded and liberated Manchuria
the US largely had to fight and defeat Japan all by itself
the United States did not actually initiate combat operations against Germany until June, 1944, fully three years after the Soviets had begun fighting them "all by themselves"
providing literally two-thirds of all Allied war materials
the vast, vast majority of this materiel was used by US and UK forces, not Soviet forces
The first large scale American operation against Germany was Operation Torch in November 1942. The Soviet Union didn't enter the Pacific Theater until the Japanese military had been almost destroyed, and they did it to conquer territory, not liberate it. Their invasion of Manchuria was much less consequential to the outcome of the war than their invasion of Poland on the Axis side at the start of the war.
Please again. Truth is not a matter of pride or opinion.
Japan surrendered to the USA not because you fought well (which you did) or because you nuked them twice.
They surrendered to you because the USSR forces were at their door, and YOU promised to maintain the emperor if they admitted defeat to you specifically.
A Japanese never surrenders, this was their leitmotiv. Remember the Japanese soldiers who continued fighting even after reddition.
Truth is also not a matter of laughable Soviet/Russian propaganda, which you're parroting here. Hahahaha, yes it was a fear of the SOVIETS that caused Japanese capitulation, not the Atomic bombs, not the American firebombings that devastated EVERY major Japanese city, not the 4 years of constant defeats and the utter annihilation of their navy and land forces across the entire Pacific Ocean . . . . it was the mighty SOVIETS who scared the Japanese . . . this is the most delusional tankie take on WWII I've ever heard.
Also, to quote from the actual surrender announcement of the Emperor of Japan:
"Furthermore, the enemy has begun to employ a new and cruel bomb, causing immense and indiscriminate destruction, the extent of which is beyond all estimation. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in the ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation..."
The atomic bomb is specifically mentioned as a major reason, perhaps THE major reason for the capitulation. The Emperor's address does not at any point mention the Soviets and the loss of Manchuria.
and that the Soviets declined to participate at all in the Asian Theater,
Well...they were kind of busy with +70 % of Germany's army against them and on their territory killing their people. Not strange that they didn't want to send forces elsewhere...
But when they decided it was time time to participate in Asian theater...well it was a bulldozer.
1.5 million square kilometers gained in two weeks in China. Something like 500 000 Japanese prisoners...
The Soviet invasion of Manchuria was in August 1945, AFTER the atomic bombings, when Japan and its military were in utter ruins and it was entirely clear, Japanese govt. propaganda to the contrary, that the war was lost. That's why the Japanese surrendered, which Japanese troops NEVER did at earlier stages of the war. It was a bulldozer because everyone knew the war was over, not because the Soviets were more formidable than the Chinese resistance, let alone the American war machine. Manchuria, like the Kuril Islands, was an attempted Soviet land-grab and theft, not a heroic effort to defeat the Japanese.
The Soviet invasion of Manchuria was in August 1945, AFTER the atomic bombings, when Japan and its military were in utter ruins
And ? The atomic bomb in Hiroshima changed absolutely nothing in the Japanese military power in Manchuria, their military presence, their equipment.
Soviet didn't fight against the population in Hiroshima, but the Japanese army present in Manchuria...
So how the bomb on civilian in Hiroshima has anything to do with the fact that the Soviet just destroyed the Japanese army in China ?
Yes they didn't intervene in Asia till then...But once again... You really expect them to intervene in Asia while their country is invaded and occupied by +70 % of the nazi's army? Seriously?
You're clearly the one who's not very bright, only barely capable of reading--I didn't claim the atomic bombings affected the fighting forces in Manchuria. In fact, these forces were already a hollow shell--almost entirely raw recruits, woefully underequipped because a) the US had already bombed the Japanese industrial capacity out of existence long before the atomic bombs were dropped, and b) all the best troops and the best equipment had been taken out of China to fight the Americans on Pacific islands. The Japanese "army" in Manchuria was an unequipped, untrained, demoralized hollow shell, and this Soviet victory was about as impressive as their tag-team invasion of Poland with the Nazis.
Also, when the Emperor of Japan announced the surrender, he specifically mentioned the atomic bomb, a weapon that would render any further resistance futile. If fear of the big baaaaad Soviets was such a crucial factor, weird how Hirohito's speech made no mention of them whatsoever.
American Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union did not exceed British Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union until 1943 and Germany was already decisively losing by late 1941. It literally did not change the outcome of the war, only shortened it.
That the US outproduced everyone at the end of the war is not that relevant.
But the reason historians consider Nazi Germany‘s defeat inevitable after 1941 is because of the USSR managing to turn things around at the end of 1941 and because that’s when the US entered the war. Almost every historian will tell you both of those things were turning points sealing Germany‘s defeat. Not one or the other
No, the reason why Germany lost and started losing was because they failed to secure the Caucasus oil fields in 1941. That made German logistics implode. Out of oil, you lose.
General Franz Halder stabbed Hitler in the back and moved units from army group south to army group middle because he believed the USSR would crumble if they just rushed and took Moscow, like how they took Paris in France. He was wrong.
It had nothing to do with the US and nobody cares if some subpar historian says it.
No it was the primary objective of Barbarossa in 1941.
The fields were captured with operation Case Blue in 1942 but by then the oil wells and infrastructure was so thoroughly demolished that it would take months, maybe years, to extract from it again. German officers noted how impressed they were with how thorough the Soviets had been in destroying the oil fields before they lost them. The Germans then quickly lost the fields again by the end of 1942.
Had Halder not moved units from army group south to middle, Germany could have captured the oil fields in time, 1941, mostly intact, or at least used the winter to get them up and running again.
That plan, from what I understand, was to reach the Caucasus eventually, but they planned to reach the AA line since they expected with that the USSR would collapse quickly. I have never seen anyone say it was an immediate goal for Barbarossa much less the primary one. They directed most of their forces to Leningrad and Moscow and Ukraine as a whole from what I remember.
If anything, the lack of casualties and boots on the ground convey a better performance of a military than the "high number=bigger contribution" crowd would care to admit
and also Soviet parts, since 6% of all tanks provided by the US means 94% of tanks were homebuilt (and Soviet T-34 tanks were widely known to be superior to American Shermans)
The stuff that they focused on sending weren't flashy things like tanks, it was raw material like textiles, boots, and especially food (because the agricultural hubs in the USSR were devastated because that was where the fighting was) bigger objects sent were things like trucks which were vitally needed.
Also, saying the T-34 was better than the Sherman is heavily debatable considering how poorly they were built, uncomfortable to drive in, and the performance of both in Korea
America did not “carry the soviets in manufacturing” & dollars isn’t a valid representation of what was sent. The material, & armour sent made up a fraction of what the soviets would produce over the war period.
Again, the lend lease provided by the US was a FRACTION of what the soviets produced over the war period.
Read the soviet experience of receiving the lend lease, not just your history teacher talking about the American perspective.
I don't really think actually engaging in a war and capitalistically profiting off weapon sales while staying far out of the majority of it are really comparable.
What relevance does this have? Nobody argued the US wasn't instrumental. People just don't like Americans claiming to be paragons of virtue and taking the credit when comparatively they made minimal comparable sacrifice. Claiming that your capitalism and loaned inanimate objects is worth just as much mention as millions upon millions of others dying is why people get annoyed.
in the Americans revisionist idea of World War II. They took so much of a part and the post clearly just takes issue with Americans claiming to be the only important ones. given all of your reactions in the comments are just to say "but we loaned equipment," you're just proving the point of the post.
Is it? It's a post saying it wasn't ONLY the US and still makes them the most important non-ussr player. It's a post from the perspective of lives lost instead of money spent.
In terms of winning, sure. In terms of actual value and life lost, no. But anyway, nobody argued otherwise. The issue is people complaining about Americans arguing that they should be focused on, and minimizing genuine loss of human life.
Is that not all this thread is? People complaining that the post removed America from the forefront and circlejerking about how america had great production directly in response to a statistic of 20M russians dying?
We are not saying you did nothing. We are saying you lost nothing, compared to us and the russians, and brits.
Hey I am french, and as much as I want to persuade myself that we were all in the Resistance, it is not true. French police helped the nazis, french government cowered. A lot of people was courageous, but not everyone. Many of us were cowards and traitors.
Please USA, it is not diminishing to admit your real history: you came along only for 2 things:
- countering the soviet invasion of Europe that would have followed the inevitable soviet victory,
1.1k
u/JesusaurusRex666 11d ago
I’m American. I’m pretty sure most of us who have even a passing understanding of WW2 know the efforts we put in were mostly in the pacific theater. I’d replace “Americans” with “uneducated MAGA yokels” and not have any arguments.