Did America win the war for the Allies in WW2?

 

Edit - the biggest sacrifice came from those who lost their cities, towns, homes and families. The USA cannot campare with the sense of loss felt by the allies and by the axis.

 

American contribution in Europe quickened the demise of the Reich, but was not decisive.

 

Germany and Japan (and also Italy) were desperate for resources. Other imperialist powers (UK, France, USA) refused them access to the resources they required for their industries. So, they had little chance other than expanding by force. That's the reason behind both world wars. So Japan declaring war on USA was not just stupidity. Japanese industry was being strangled by the Americans. And the nazis wanted to do to the Russia and Poland what Americans did to America (i.e. kill the natives, colonise).

 

However, Germans failed. They knocked out France, but RAF defeated the Luftwaffe, which meant that Britain would be safe. Brits also broke the Enigma code, reducing the danger from the submarines. 

 

The nazis also grossly underestimated the industrial and political power of the USSR. In WW1, rural economy of Tsarist Russia collapsed under massive attack. Similar thing happened to the other backward countries such as the Ottoman Empire. In WW2, it happened to China. So the Germans believed that the backward Soviet economy would collapse when they had to mobilise vast numbers and suffered heavy loses. They were wrong. Soviet economy was no longer so backward, it had industrialised with neck-breaking (literally, as millions were killed in the process) speed.

 

Despite the stupidity of Stalin initial German assault failed to reach their objectives (Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad and Baku never fell), and they found themselves facing a defiant USSR and a defiant UK. And despite occupying vast (and best) regions of the USSR, Germany was being outproduced by USSR alone. Germany lacked critical resources such as oil. Once the war became a war of attrition, there was no victory for the nazis. In my opinion, even if Moscow, and Leningrad fell, the Soviets would have retreated behind the Volga and eventually win the war of attrition.

 

Interesting to note, however, that in 1942 the ratio of the land and population controlled by the Axis forces to those controlled by the allies was close to 1, especially in the Russian front. So the USSR did not really have a huge manpower base advantage. But of course a lot of the population controlled by the nazis were in occupied countries.

 

Quality of the weapons different countries produced is quite irrelevant as they all produced good enough equipment. Mustangs were good planes but later model Spitfires were as good. Large scale industrial organisation is more relevant. USSR and USA developed a reliable model and spammed it thousands upon thousands. Germans, Japanese, Italians and the British tended to have shorter production runs. So what happened was the Germans would design a super-tank and produce 100 of them and 50 would not work on the field. Russians would produce 300 basic tanks all of which would work. In my opinion (in fact it is Mark Harrison's) the USSR-USA production model (large production runs, small number of models) is better for war, while the other countries' model of short production run, large number of models is better for peace time. That's one reason why European and Japanese economies performed better after the war.

US defeated Japan but USSR defeated the nazis. USSR would have defeated them with or without US or even UK. What's more, Soviet contribution to the surrender of Japan is far more than the American contribution to the surrender of Germany.

 

USSR out-produced the nazis by more than 100%. It is, in one word, ridiculous to claim that the US should get the credit for this.

 

The second War, as no other, was about numbers and mobilizing them.  Resources and management were more decisive than who had bigger tanks or more airplanes.  No other power was able to mobilize resources to the degree the US could.  Part of that was geographic, but so what?

 

WithOUT the partcipation of the US, Britain would have been bankrupt much earlier than 1945.  And bankrupt she was, as the austerity years up into the 1950s showed.  Lend Lease, credits granted in the US and the materials and foodstuffs of North America kept her in the war.  All that accelerated after Pearl Harbor. 

 

Canada had done her part, but Canada had neither the population nor the industrial and transportation infrastructure to go it alone.

 

WithOUT the participation of the US, strategic bombing of Germany could not have been undertaken to the degree it was done.  Strategic bombing did not accomplish what the fly boys thought it could, but it engaged very substantial numbers of German personnel in defence.  

 

WithOUT the partcipation of the US in the Mediterranean, Italy may have stayed in the war indefinitely, and Germany would not have had to devote 25 divisions to that theater.  In the absence of US involvement, Spain may have actively supported the Axis both in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean.....I don't think that's likely for several reasons, but we are doing conjecture here. 

 

WithOUT the participation of the US, the battle of the North Atlantic may not have been won by 1943...perhaps not won at all.

 

WithOUT the partcipation of the US, the Murmansk run may not have been possible.  Murmansk did not supply all Russia's needs as sometimes thought, but it played a major part in preventing the fall of, and the sustaining of, Leningrad through the long seige.  The collapse of the northern flank, before Stalingrad, might have posed serious problems for the USSR since the extensive riverine, lacustrine and canal system of Russia would then have come under pressure and assisted German advance into the interior.  (Conjecture now, but nobody knew it then.)

 

WithOUT the participation of the US, as said, the war may have ended in accomodation that might have left Germany 1) able to recover losses or consolidate gains, 2) able to resume the war at a later time, and/or 3) in a position to be the hegemon in continental Europe with only the USSR as a counterweight.  Who knows?  But, such a situation was not acceptable to either of the Western powers (UK/US).

 

Only involvement by the US enabled the unconditional surrender of Germany and the dismantling of German power.  Only US presence on the continent of Europe prevented the replacement of Nazi Germany by Soviet Russia as an equally unacceptable hegemon on the continent, and far to the east as well.  Neither France nor Britain could play that part any longer.

 

You cannot consider the war a success only if Germany was defeated, to be supplanted by the USSR. 

 

So, my vote:  yes, America did win the war for the Allies, and certainly prevented further European self-immolation.

 

     

 

I'll go further into the numbers games for a future post especially for those who dig that kind of stuff. Needless to say, American airpower took a heavy toll on German infrastructure before the Soviets reached Berlin.

 

Not to be forgotten the Soviets were asking for a lend lease of their own and got it in Roosevelt's aid package. Light trucks, light tanks, chemicals/explosives, C- rations, jeeps, clothing etc. were all shipped from the Atlantic to Soviet lands. That was given while Soviets were dismantling factories in the west and moving them eastward.

 

Once the Soviets started pushing back Nazi aggressors (after 1941) the Germans were already at a disadvantage. Too spread out to consolidate and too low in manpower the German armies would face further key losses.

 

Would Germany hold onto Europe without Soviet counterforces and without American involvement? Most definately. That leaves Britain out of this equation as the biggest reason for winning the war for the allies. Would Nazi Germany win the war and hold onto Europe without American involvement but still face the Soviet miltary? Perhaps and likely the Soviets would have won if... (see further below). However, the Germans would have maneuvered assets and reinforced at a faster rate since Americans were not consuming her forces or bombing her cities. This next thought is intruiging. Would the Germans win without American involvement? Though in reality this was not the case and this isn't an alternative history thread, it is speculation over real events, the question is implied within the topic title. It is clear to me, Pikeshot and a few others that withOUT supplies, withOUT funding, withOUT soldiers, withOUT superior airpower, withOUT dividing German divisions that the Russians and hence the rest of Erope would have faced a more potent and dangerous Nazi foe. If left unchecked in the south and west she would have reeked havoc on the east. Given time to stabalize and produce more noobdy would have overrun Germany.

 

Of course the above speculative thoughts are only that, speculative. The allies would not have won without the efforts of each and everyone of the other. Still it's always good to guess who was the most important in bringing the deciding factor.