How big was USA's role in defeating Germany in WW2?

[amadeus]

1. America played a relatively small part in defeating the Germans both times.

What?

Moderator Action: This thread was split off from this one here. If you find a miss-split post, then please report it.

 

[RedRalph]

What?

Yes? How long did the USA spend fighting them compared to the UK? How many Germans did they kill compared to the USSR? How many soldiers did they lose in the war against Germany? The Germans were already beaten by D-Day. The Red Army played the overwhelmingly largest part in defeating the Nazis. No serious historian disputes this, the facts speak for themselves.

In WW1 it was an even tinier contribution.

 

[ZeletDude]

Yes? How long did the USA spend fighting them compared to the UK? How many Germans did they kill compared to the USSR? How many soldiers did they lose in the war against Germany? The Germans were already beaten by D-Day. The Red Army played the overwhelmingly largest part in defeating the Nazis. No serious historian disputes this, the facts speak for themselves.

In WW1 it was an even tinier contribution.

Lend-Lease..? North Africa? The Italian Campaign? And the whole Pacific Theater? I agree with you on WW1 though..

 

[ParkCungHee]

Yes? How long did the USA spend fighting them compared to the UK?

Largely irrelevant to how big a role they played. Belgium for example, was in the war for longer then the Soviet Union.

How many Germans did they kill compared to the USSR?

Almost as many!

How many soldiers did they lose in the war against Germany?

Again, irrelevant. China lost by far the most in the war against Japan. Clearly they had the greatest role in their defeat.

The Germans were already beaten by D-Day.

America was fighting Germany well before D-Day.

This is of course, all measured solely on the fighting against the German Army, not even getting into issues relating to the air war (and strategic bombing) and military aid to Britain and the USSR.

 

[The_Tyrant]

The Red Army played the overwhelmingly largest part in defeating the Nazis. No serious historian disputes this, the facts speak for themselves.

Granted the Soviets suffered the largest amount of casualties but it was America who shifted the balance of power by creating a second front to relieve the Soviets.

 

[RedRalph]

Park, the Americans killed nowhere near as many Germans as the red army. You cannot possibly believe that.

 

[RedRalph]

Granted the Soviets suffered the largest amount of casualties but it was America who shifted the balance of power by creating a second front to relieve the Soviets.

No, it wasn't. The germans were already finished by that point.

 

[The_Tyrant]

No, it wasn't. The germans were already finished by that point.

You've got to be kidding me...

 

[ParkCungHee]

Park, the Americans killed nowhere near as many Germans as the red army. You cannot possibly believe that.

Killed? No. Caused casualties of? Yes.
For example take Tunisia, the Soviets thought Africa was a sideshow, but the Germans lost as many in they had in Stalingrad. The war in France did not last as long, but the losses involved for the Germans were tremendous.

 

[ZeletDude]

No, it wasn't. The germans were already finished by that point.

This may be true.. but all the military aid to the allies and the other military campaigns certainly did something, you can't say America did nothing..

 

[Verbose]

This may be true.. but all the military aid to the allies and the other military campaigns certainly did something, you can't say America did nothing..

"Nothing" wasn't floated, just that it wasn't the primary contribution to victory.

 

[RedRalph]

You've got to be kidding me...

No, I'm not. They were in a state of total collapse on the Eastern front. They were beaten.

This may be true.. but all the military aid to the allies and the other military campaigns certainly did something, you can't say America did nothing..

I didn't say they did nothing, I said their contributions in both wars were relatively small, which they were, no matter how many movies depict otherwise. They did a great job and pulled off some heroic actions, but that doesn't mean they did a large share of the work. Their contribution is dwarved by that of the USSR. Those facts don't mean I have anything less than a huge respect for the American contribution. It's just that it was what it was.

Park, the Americans still inflicted a fraction of the casualties on the Germans that the Red Army did. Not in the same league.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Park, the Americans still inflicted a fraction of the casualties on the Germans that the Red Army did. Not in the same league.

I said casualties. Your chart lists only military deaths (and Hungarian, Romanian and other Soviet ones at that) not total numeric losses. And again, I notice you're latching on to one aspect of the war: Casualties in the German Army, which does not include, as I pointed out, the Allied Strategic Bombing campaign, nor the immense material support which the Soviets required to do as well as they did.

 

[RedRalph]

OK, I'll try and find the non-fatal casualty figures, but do you honestly expect them to be comparable? Seriously? And yeah, I am latching onto that but I could latch onto many, many more things that would show the Soviet contribution vastly dwarved the American one.

Oh, that old chestnut, "The Soviets wouldn't have done as well without US supplies". Yeah, that's probably true. Now tell me this: How exactly do you think the US would have done without the Soviets tying up the vast, vast majority of the German army in the east? How do you reckon D-Day would have gone with another 3m German soldiers sitting in France? Not only did the Red Army kill and wound far, far more German soldiers (are you still contending it was 'about the same'???), they destroyed far more German material than the Americans and consumed far more German manpower. So you do not want to get into "you wouldn't have done as well without us", because that argument massively reinforces Soviet contrbutions, not American ones.

Come on man and put your national pride aside, there is no dispute about this if you look at the facts. The Americans fought bravely and in many cases heroically, but you cannot seriously claim they did as much or anywhere near as much as the USSR to defeat the Nazis.

 

[ParkCungHee]

OK, I'll try and find the non-fatal casualty figures, but do you honestly expect them to be comparable? Seriously?

Yes I do. I And yeah, I am latching onto that but I could latch onto many, many more things that would show the Soviet contribution vastly dwarved the American one.

Oh, that old chestnut, "The Soviets wouldn't have done as well without US supplies". Yeah, that's probably true. Now tell me this: How exactly do you think the US would have done without the Soviets tying up the vast, vast majority of the German army in the east?

I suppose they would have killed a lot more Germans in that case.

How do you reckon D-Day would have gone with another 3m German soldiers sitting in France?

Mostly the same. The Work of D-Day was establishing a beachhead. Having 3 Million troops in France doesn't mean you can move them in a giant stack into Normandy. It's not Hearts of Iron.

Not only did the Red Army kill and wound far, far more German soldiers (are you still contending it was 'about the same'???),

I was including POWs, so yes, they're at least within comparative distance. The Soviets captured 3.5 million Axis servicemen in total. While I don't have reliable numbers, the Western allies are said by wikipedia to have taken in 7.6 million, in other words, more then all Axis Troops killed on the Eastern Front.

Come on man and put your national pride aside, there is no dispute about this if you look at the facts.

I will put my National Pride aside. Tri-Insula, despite having some of the best man for man contributions, was to small of an island chain to have a tremendous effect on the war.

The Americans fought bravely and in many cases heroically, but you cannot seriously claim they did as much or anywhere near as much as the USSR to defeat the Nazis.

You don't realize this but you are just as far out of the historical consensus as the people saying America saved Europe during WWII. The fact is that America had a tremendous role in the defeat of Germany during WWII, so much so that the defeat of Germany is inexplicable without including the United States in the Narrative.

 

[RedRalph]

OK to be honest, I'm not really willing to debate WW2 history with someone who says the allies would 'merely have killed a lot more Germans' in France had there been no eastern front, not to mention someone who doesn't realise the very obvious reasons for the massive disparity in POWs taken by both sides. If you wish to imagine the Americans did as much to defeat the Nazis as the USSR did, then that's fine.

BTW, you can't make huge stacks in HoI anymore.

 

[ParkCungHee]

OK to be honest, I'm not really willing to debate WW2 history with someone who says the allies would 'merely have killed a lot more Germans' in France had there been no eastern front,

I'm not going to speculate in any more detail then that, but yes, that seems to be about the size of it. What's your alternative? The British and Americans eventually acquiesce to Germany's control of Europe? Or the Germans acquiesce to everything the Americans and British want? Or the Germans just eventually have some sort of political dispute amongst themselves and give up the fight?

not to mention someone who doesn't realise the very obvious reasons for the massive disparity in POWs taken by both sides.

Oh, I realize the reasons why entirely. That doesn't change the fact of the role they played in the defeat of Germany. If the Americans had shot them all once they got them in POW camps, would it have made a difference in how much they contributed to the war? Any way you slice it 7.6 million is an absolutely mind-numbing amount of troops removed from the field, and that alone means American contribution to the war can't be written off as "relatively small."

 

[RedRalph]

I'm not going to speculate in any more detail then that, but yes, that seems to be about the size of it. What's your alternative? The British and Americans eventually acquiesce to Germany's control of Europe? Or the Germans acquiesce to everything the Americans and British want? Or the Germans just eventually have some sort of political dispute amongst themselves and give up the fight?

Sorry I have to ask: do you think it was somehow predetermined that Germany would be beaten by the US eventually no matter what? That no matter how much strength Germany had in France the Americans would have driven them out? You don't think an extra 3 millions German soldiers just might have driven the Americans back into the sea?

Oh, I realize the reasons why entirely. That doesn't change the fact of the role they played in the defeat of Germany. If the Americans had shot them all once they got them in POW camps, would it have made a difference in how much they contributed to the war? Any way you slice it 7.6 million is an absolutely mind-numbing amount of troops removed from the field, and that alone means American contribution to the war can't be written off as "relatively small."

So let me get this straight: you think the fact that Germans fled west to surrender in their droves because they were terrified of the Red Army somehow shows the Americans contributed as much you think accepting the surrender of floods of men who voluntarily put down their arms is the same as actually doing the fighting and killing them?

Come off it, you are normally so much better than this. This is utterly ridiculous. I'll drop out here, this is pointless. I'm sure somewhere there are Poles, Serbians, Brits and Frenchmen who also have contructed fantasy reasons why they did the most to beat the Nazis too.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Sorry I have to ask: do you think it was somehow predetermined that Germany would be beaten by the US eventually no matter what?

Predetermined? No. It could have been a Tyson-Douglas moment, but that's always a possibility. But there is no reason to believe the Germans would have won, no.

That no matter how much strength Germany had in France the Americans would have driven them out?

Not really no. The ability to drive back a beachhead is determined primarily by the amount of forces you can pour into the relatively narrow strip of land. At that point, with total air superiority, and tremendously superior logistics, the Americans could always put more men into the bridgehead then Germany.

You don't think an extra 3 millions German soldiers just might have driven the Americans back into the sea?

Even if they had, so what? The Americans will just be back again, with more guys again. There's really no scenario I see Germany winning the war by 1940. Unless you're getting into very tenuous circumstances, any scenario you concoct at that point ends in "Well, I guess the other parties will have to kill a lot more Germans."

So let me get this straight: you think the fact that Germans fled west to surrender in their droves because they were terrified of the Red Army somehow shows the Americans contributed as much you think accepting the surrender of floods of men who voluntarily put down their arms is the same as actually doing the fighting and killing them?

Yes, it's a tremendously simple, and strategically effective idea, that we unfortunately didn't learn to apply in the pacific theater: If people are afraid to death of you, they will fight you, until dead.
They fled the Soviet Army because they knew there was a better alternative. Simply by providing that alternative saved the Soviet Union from having to fight and capture or kill as many men as it already had before.
Work smarter, not harder.

Come off it, you are normally so much better than this. This is utterly ridiculous.

You think I'm normally better then this. Do you think that maybe there is a reason I'm saying this? A reason other then national pride taken in carnage, or an actual desire to believe that Americans are somehow better at wide-scale, industrialized murder?

 

[Agent Cooper]

I can't imagine that it's even debatable, the fact that Germany's fortunes of war shifted completely after Stalingrad, a trend reinforced after the battle at Kursk.

The Soviets were the largest contributor in defeating Nazi-Germany. Every WW2 veteran, historian or documentary I've ever heard on the matter supports this.

The major US contribution to the defeat of Hitler was military hardware and financial support.

You can take almost full credit with defeating the Empire of Japan if that's an alluring proposition.