... with the power of democracy, equality, and freedom, of course! To get somewhat serious here... I'm a stickler for military history, especially pertaining to the Second World War, and there is a lot of "If America didn't enter the war, then ___" that is thrown around. Some of this was touched upon in another thread, but it was derailing that topic. I believe this has been a topic before, but it's so long gone and buried, that a new one seems appropriate. Basically, three things I'm going to ask: How important was America's involvement in World War II? How would the war have fared if America never got directly (we know about their arms/supply shipments) involved? Was D-Day really as significant as we're led to believe? Feel free to add in anything, really. I just enjoy discussing this piece of history. For the record, I might be American, but I also happen to consider World War II my finest piece of self academia, so I know more than what general textbooks 'teach'. Unfortunately, I'll have to respond to this later, because I need some rest and have a somewhat busy morning ahead of me.
How important was America's involvement in World War II? Very How would the war have fared if America never got directly (we know about their arms/supply shipments) involved? It would have lasted longer but with eventual allied victory. What Russia would have been able to do without US involvement doesn't bear thinking about, though Was D-Day really as significant as we're led to believe? Probably not Would elaborate but also quite busy!
I tend to go along with whats in here: The 5 Most Widely Believed WWII Facts (That Are Bullshit) | Cracked.com Whilst I dearly love the United States some of its citizens clearly need to do some proper research into WW2 and everything it entailed. Unfortunately Hollywood was a very., very good PR machine.
Neither am I. If my country sit out the WW2, I think I can easily sit this argument out. *covers his ears and sing la,la,la,la"
The USA were important, but I don't think they single handedly won the war as hollywood might like to make us believe. It was a team effort between all of the allied forces.
How important was America's involvement in World War II? Very important for the Allies, thank you . How would the war have fared if America never got directly (we know about their arms/supply shipments) involved? The Japanese would likely have won in the east and then possibly turn their attention on Russia. With no Americans in the war, the Germans could have sent more of their forces east instead of waiting for a D Day but the Russian weather did play a big part. A lot of what ifs. Was D-Day really as significant as we're led to believe? No, the Russians took on most of the German force so they would probably have ended up taking a lot more of Europe before another Allied assault.
How important was America's involvement in World War II? I believe it played a significant role in the Pacific, and a helpful role in Europe. Japan was pretty much running wild, without anybody to really check them on that side of the globe. How would the war have fared if America never got directly (we know about their arms/supply shipments) involved? I believe the European front would have wound up about the same, though the Soviet Union would have had more "justification" for buffer zones, than it had in our timeline. I suspect that communism (or more appropriately Stalinism at that time) would have taken hold in France and Italy. Germany, though, is the really interesting piece. Would it have been divided into spheres of influence? Hard to say. As mentioned before, the Soviets would have a greater "justification" for taking all of Germany, if they carried the bulk of the casualties. As for events in the Pacific, I suspect Japan would have fared better, with a battered Europe. If the European powers didn't target Japan following Germany's defeat, then it's likely a cease-fire of some kind would have been had. Except for China, that'd have continued to be a bloody guerrilla campaign, and which the Soviets would [most likely] continue to supply. It's hard to say what Stalin would have done. In the conflicts between Imperial Japan and the Soviets, the Japanese tended to get stomped. So, while it is possible Stalin may have launched some kind of attack, I don't think he would have, without America. For one, he'd have a lot more of Europe to deal with, as well as his own country, in this timeline. I like to think Stalin would be banking on the Chinese grinding Japan down, allowing them to become communist in what remained free of Imperial forces, much like our timeline. Also, Stalin really wanted Finland. It's likely he'd have tried for it first, before considering any serious action against Japan. Was D-Day really as significant as we're led to believe? No. While one can see how it sped up the war, it was almost redundant. For one, by the time June 1944 rolled around, the Soviets were in control of the Eastern Front (it became their war to lose), Italy was practically finished and infiltrated by the Allied forces, and many of the Reich's allies in Eastern Europe were surrendering (or preparing to surrender) or turning against it, in the hopes of appeasing the Soviets and, hopefully, maintaining a degree of independence in post-war Eastern Europe. Secondly, after Stalin's constant requests for a "second front" went ignored, the Soviets were forced to handle themselves. When June 1944 rolled around, the Soviet forces were already involved in, or preparing to be involved in, some of the largest land campaigns of the entire war. If you want to talk about a brutal storming of a coast, there's Gallipoli. Of course, that's World War I, but still. Outside of Australia and New Zealand, as well as some of Europe and Turkey, this campaign always seems to be overshadowed by D-Day. It'd have been interesting if Hitler hadn't have tried to screw Stalin over, what Europe would be like. That's assuming Stalin didn't have plans to screw Hitler over. Especially without American involvement.
Well here is some things i think about world war II, America was important to the war especially to Australia. The difference of America not joining the war, well Australia would fall to Japan and America would've joined the war at that stage, nothing in Europe would change though, excepting of course Japan being the superpower of the east.
I think the far more interesting of the two World Wars is WW1 and that is the one that Americans can really have more of a solid claim to having helped sigificantly win as opposed to WW2. as much as I like history, it's really hard to tease out specific variables to determine the outcome. Anyone who is interested should read The Man In the High Castle, which explores how the world would be different if the Axis powers had won WW2. However, that isn't really the point of the book, the point is to ask if history is inevitable. Regardless, worth the read.
I don't claim to be an expert on WW2, but I know enough to say that American involvement was highly significant and no doubt hastened the end of the war. I think the significance of American involvement can be overstated at times, but I wouldn't wish to belittle what the US nation contributed to the allied effort.
Huh...if I recall, the US was one country in a group of allies that "won" World War II ("won" in quotes, as I don't see how anyone wins in a war...seems a pretty stupid word to use for the number of deaths and the amount of overall suffering endured on all sides...not to mention those who weren't technically on any side, but suffered and died nonetheless). I mean, sure, if the US hadn't entered the war when it did, there's a good chance the side we joined wouldn't have "won"...as I recall, Churchill, at least, was pretty worried, and was *terribly* relieved when the US declared their entry. BUT one could also ask whether the war would have been "won" by that same side if Great Britain (for instance) had not started fighting when *they* did. Funny that nobody does ask that. Seems to me that the US is the only country arrogant enough to suppose that "they are the ones that won the war." (Note by the way the parallel to a tall 14 year old boy who claims to have won the basketball game...I don't know much about players and their personalities, but I strongly suspect that adult players are much less likely to try to take the credit for their team's win.)
At school they pretty much taught us that the USA saved Australia from the Japanese. I don't know how true that is.
America is lucky for having two oceans to separate it and relatively peaceful neighboring countries. So, it's involvement was invaluable because it could attack all the axis powers while also not worrying about its homeland or manufacturing being attacked (incidentally, some Japanese balloon bombs did land on the West Coast). I don't think America would have been indirect because it clearly had ties with Britain and Australia. I don't know enough to guess what could have been done. It would have been interesting if any Latin American countries sided with the Axis powers (many Nazis fled to Argentina), because that could have really threatened America. D-Day was significant because France was so huge and Britain was always on the edge of invasion itself, but there were lots of equally significant events, like in the east and south of the Third Reich.
I would say that the US survived WW2. What exactly ended it is a phenomenon. A beast that's not been unleashed to this point since its proven worth. To this point, annihilation is the reason not to pick a real fight. Now, we all play petty games with commodities. Oil and gold are good recent examples.
I feel like the American contribution is always overhyped a little bit. While the war likely would have taken a significantly different turn in some regions America did not win the war on its own. For example if Britain was unable to hold itself during the years from the fall of France till 1943 when US help really started coming it would have been a difficult situation. Same goes for the fact that Canada protected the majority of shipping across the Atlantic and when the US joined the US eastern coast in 1942-3 because they had to move a lot of ships to the Pacific. Etc.. etc... it was a team effort. America certainly made a major difference, but to forget That the UK, Canada, Australia, USSR, New Zealand etc... Played at times huge parts for the size of their nations is to forget how the allies managed to pull it off.
I'll just say the USA wasn't the only Ally on the non-Communist side and that Nazi-Germany never would have defeated the Soviet Union. Their involvement certainly sped things up, but it wasn't crucial.
Imagine how much further West that Iron Curtain could have been had the US not directly intervened when it did, though. Had the US not given financial, material and then direct war aid, I've a feeling that the Nazis would never have been crushed and so neatly dealt with. That's not to say that there would have been a Reich for a thousand years, but I'm rather certain that the US was one of the biggest reasons it was such a decisive defeat for the Fascist states rather than a slower process of petering-out followed by chaotic groups vying for power in their wake. Nazi Germany was never truly strong enough to impose itself on the rest of the world from 1939, but they could have been far more successful in wreaking havoc than they were with their decision to declare war on America. I've never liked historical hypotheticals, though. Broad speculation is generally questionable or exceedingly obvious. Specifics are often pedantic and useless; breaking a link in the chain of real events doesn't give us much insight because it's hard to ascertain the multitude of other possibilities.
