Historical clarification on World Wars?

Question

Remember guys, a friendly discussion. "We've saved Europe's butt twice" says a well-meaning answerer. Has America really? Can someone offer evidence that counters the number and pressure of Stalin's troops on Hitler, and Hitler's plain bad military strategy near the end of WWII. We're not saying America didn't save lives, but did they really win the war single-handedly?
World War I ended when Germany starved itself to death, and we all signed some peace treaties. Evidence proving that the U.S. saved the world then? Please: historical evidence, not emotional evidence.

Answer 1

Ah, an excellent historical 'what if' question.

I believe it is safe to say this:
WWI: we saved lives but didn't win the war. Without our intervention, The Great War would have drug on for years, ended in stalemate, and cost hudreds of thousands of more European lives. Germany may have even pulled that one out. They were the only ones experimenting with new technology. The Brits and French were still stuck in the 'old style' of conducting war and, though they were trying new things, they weren't as quick to get the technology out as Germany. Trenches put a kink in this style and they had a hard time adjusting.

Now to WWII:
Had the Treaty of Versailles not been as harsh, I don't believe this one would have went down. This treaty, through it's 'blank check for reparations,' destroyed the German economy and eventually the world economy. This is what brought on the Great Depression.

Since it DID happen, here's my take on the 'world saving' thing.
Yes, we had to get into this one or half the world would be speaking German as their national language and the swastika would be flying over them. The reason, besides the Russian winter, that Hitler couldn't take Russia is this: he feared an invasion from the Atlantic and really, REALLY wanted to take down England. This tied up troops that otherwise would have been in Russia. Also, to cover the bad strategy part, if he had left Russia alone until he had England, it would have been far more difficult for us to invade. That was the slip that helped us, and Britian couldn't do it alone.

So, to make this long story short, we only saved their butts once, not twice, in my opinion. And even then it wasn't a real butt-save.
We were saving our own as well.

Answer 2

WW2 I agree America didn't win the war all by itself in Europe, though we did come in at a good time and when Germany was close to securing the western front. In the Pacific and the war against Japan, It was all America.

Answer 3

single handedly, no. were it not for stalins troops (WWII) on the eastern front, a vast many more german soldiers would've been able to take arms against the allies pronlonging the war, but certainly not chainging it's outcome. british RAF bombers in tandem with ours brought the war of attrition to germany quite effectively and stalled their campaign.

Answer 4

No problem.

First of all, in world war I, germany didnt quite "starve" itself to death. It was running low on resources, but lets face it... they dont call it the "lost generation" for nothing. Both sides faced ENORMOUS casualties, and most men of fighting age were killed on both sides. Germany, being the smaller country, was going to run out first.

Well, thats a little simplistic I guess. Its more complicated than that. The germans advances were stalled and pushed back, and they were making zero or negative progress for years at a time. The german generals knew that they had been strategically outclassed and outmaneuvered on the battlefield as well.

Thirdly, the germans simply couldn't match the production power of America and the Russians/Soviets... most notably in terms of artillery shells and bullets. We were able to provide the western front with a continuing, and increasing, supply of these weapons, which were the staple of so-called "trench warfare." The germans on the other hand were producing less and less. They simply could not maintain their war machine.

Lets move on to world war II then!

In world war II the germans made a fatal mistake. Or, more accurately, HITLER made a fatal mistake. He attacked the soviet union.

Now, it wouldn't have been a bad idea if it had been properly planned; the initial success shows just how easily the Germans beat them back. They were on the doorstep of Moscow in a few months! Unfortunately, as they say in the military, "proper planning prevents poor performance" and proper planning, the germans did not have.

Hitlers staff URGED him to wait, so that they could add a dozen or so more divisions, and upgrade their hardware, before the invasion of the soviet union. This would take several months, and invading Russia must be done at a very specific time. The goal was Moscow: the germans believed that with the fall of moscow, the soviet union would fall apart and the rest would be easy pickings.

However, the germans were well aware of the weather conditions in Russia. they had to attack, beat the russians back, and capture moscow ALL before the spring; and therefore, Hitler had to initiate the attack at very specific point in time. If he had agreed to wait and build up more, he would have missed the window and would have had to delay a full year. By that time, the russians would have been privy to the growing army on their borders, and Hitler was rightfully afraid that the Russians might attack first. So, he launched prematurely, and ended up bogged down in exactly the situation he didnt want to be.

Anyway that was in 1943. On the Western front, America's plan was (as it still is) to batter the german production/economy into submission, thereby making resupply of German troops impossible, and thereby making invasion a snap. So, from the beginning of American/British air bombardment and carpet bombing in Germany, the goal was to destroy production centers before any troops were put on the ground. In military terms, you always cut off the head of the snake first, and the rest withers.

Also in 1943, Rommel, the german general in charge of taking back lost italian soil in North Africa, was BADLY beating the British with insufficient supplies and small numbers. It was not until a joint American and British force cut his supply lines that any success was had, and even then it was mostly joint efforts that finally defeated the Afrika Korps. So our introduction into the mix there was absolutely essential to our victory.

Cleaning up: The Americans introduction into the war meant a massive influx of supplies for the Allies, both to Britain and the soviet union (via lend-lease) and the bombing meant that Germanys production was once again being reduced. When we realized that Germany was caught up on the Eastern front, we took advantage of the situation to squeeze germany from three sides.

It was NOT American war machines that helped Britain survive the Blitz, but it WAS American war machines that defeated Rommel, it was American goods that prevented the German's capture of oilfields in the aegean area, modern day yugoslavia. Lets look at what would have happened without us.

Britain would have survived the blitz because:
a) german bombers carried an insufficient bombload.
b) german fighters were inefficient because they didnt carry enough fuel to be of proper escorting assistance.
c) german rockets were too sparse to make much difference.
d) germans simply failed at destroying the radar system.
e) after the failure of the airwar due to those respects, the plans for a land invasion were postponed.

Russia would NOT have been able to hold the German lines because:
a) russia did not have long range bombers in sufficient numbers, or in sufficient range, to hit german industrial centers. Britian didnt have enough of them either.
b) russia was fairly close to running out of manpower.
c) russia could not produce tanks equivalent to the germans; they just produced them in greater numbers. German tank battalions were killing 20 or more Soviet tanks for each german tank lost... many german tanks were abandoned due to mechanical failure, lack of fuel or supplies, not destroyed.

Americans were CRITICAL in cutting the germans supply lines in world war II, and that aided the fight for both sides. Without it, germany would have been able to complete mass production of machines that were far more advanced and capable than any other nation could supply.

Hope this helps!
-m

Answer 5

for wwii, germany diverted its attention to russia, then underestimated the resistance from england. this gave us the time we needed to fortify and join the allies in europe. otherwise, it could have been much worse for us. japan was so confident on its occupation of the u.s. that it had already printed money to use here. after wwi, germany was stripped of most of its major assets that they hadn't much to lose by going to war. the money was devalued so much, it was practically worthless.