Why do American's think they won WW2 all by themselves?

Question

I'm a British teenager and I'm taking History as a GCSE and I recently had a holiday In America and I have noticed that Americans are VERY proud and VERY patriotic over there accomplishments during the second World War. Fair enough us Brit's couldn't have won over Hitler without them but I'm fed up with Americans saying that they won it all by themselves and that no country can ever beat them. The truth is that the Russians played the biggest part in the war an without them everyone would now be speaking German.

Answer 1

Forgive me, but I'm getting tired of the repetion of this question in this section... it is asked at least once a day on average.



I'd be curious as to WHICH Americans you are referring too... I'd be willing to guess that those who DO claim that the USA won the war "by themselves" fall into TWO groups -



- Young teenagers who haven't had a proper US / World History class yet (or skipped or failed it) and spend most of their time playing "Call of Duty".

- Ancient old veterans who spent WWII in a depot or stateside and are fiercely patriotic but suffering from the beginnings of Alzheimers.



I AM glad to see a few point out the mood-attitude of Churchill... that Great Britain was broke, on it's knees, and PLANNING to remove the Government to Canada. LITERALLY Great Britain was close to bankruptcy (couldn't buy arms, aircraft, food, etc.) well prior to the Battle of Britain. Also, IF Hitler and Goering hadn't been such idiots... the Luftwaffe COULD have destroyed the RAF and succeeded in putting up a blockade of the sea-approaches. BUT, Hitler pulled the RAF off bombing RAF bases and aircraft facilities... using them against the cities themselves... and THEN pulling them out to the Eastern Front for his idiotic invasion of the Soviet Union.



ALSO glad to see those who point out the effect of the US materials to the Soviet Union... without the trucks, trains, food, clothing and aircraft the Soviets would have been pushed back to the Urals. 80% of the Soviet winter clothing was US fabric as were 75% of their winter boots.

Answer 2

Some Americans do, some don't, it appears that a lot do though.



Really though it was a combined effort by



After the German invasion of Poland:

Poland: 1 September 1939

Australia: 3 September 1939

France: 3 September 1939

New Zealand: 3 September 1939

United Kingdom: 3 September 1939

India: 3 September 1939

South Africa: 6 September 1939

Canada: 10 September 1939

Denmark: 9 April 1940

Norway: 9 April 1940



After the Phoney War:

Belgium: 10 May 1940

Luxembourg: 10 May 1940

Netherlands: 10 May 1940

Greece: 28 October 1940

Yugoslavia: 6 April 1941



After the invasion of the USSR:

Soviet Union: 22 June 1941 (cooperated with Axis during Invasion of Poland)

Ukraine: 22 June 1941

Byelorussian SSR: 22 June 1941



After the attack on Pearl Harbor:

Panama: 7 December 1941

Costa Rica: 8 December 1941

Dominican Republic: 8 December 1941

El Salvador: 8 December 1941

Haiti: 8 December 1941

Honduras: 8 December 1941

Nicaragua: 8 December 1941

United States of America: 8 December 1941

China: 9 December 1941

Guatemala: 9 December 1941

Cuba: 9 December 1941

Philippine Commonwealth: 9 December 1941

Czechoslovakia: 16 December 1941



After the Declaration by United Nations:

Mexico: 22 May 1942

Brazil: 22 August 1942

Ethiopia: 14 December 1942

Iraq: 17 January 1943

Bolivia: 7 April 1943

Colombia: 26 July 1943

Iran: 9 September 1943

Liberia: 27 January 1944

Peru: 12 February 1944



After D-Day:

Ecuador: 2 February 1945

Paraguay: 7 February 1945

Uruguay: 15 February 1945

Venezuela: 15 February 1945

Turkey: 23 February 1945

Egypt: 24 February 1945

Lebanon: 27 February 1945

Syria: 27 February 1945

Saudi Arabia: 1 March 1945

Argentina: 27 March 1945

Chile: 11 April 1945

Answer 3

They think that because that's the tendency of the education and media, to glorify the actions of the country they're in. While it can be frustrating, it is pretty normal human nature.



But the thing that pisses me off is that nobody seems to want to accept the fact that it was a combined effort. The Russians did not play the biggest part and win it either. Without the massive amounts of lend lease they got Russia would not have survived the war at all, never mind winning. If you take out any one of the major players, you would likely have a German victory.



Yes, without Russia you would probably be speaking German. But without the US, you'd be speaking German. And without the UK, Russia would be speaking German. The US was the only one that was safe from the fate of speaking German, because by the time Germany was in a position to attack the US directly the US would have been ready for it. And let's face it, even if they won the war the Nazi power structure was not the most stable and the long term determination to wage a war across an ocean was very unlikely.

Answer 4

As an American and a history major in college, I definitely agree with you on this one. It's really hard to imagine the scale of the Eastern war in WW2. In World War I as well, people think only of the Western Front. However the difference is that in WW2, Russia was by far the largest theater of the war, and its frightening to think about what may have happened to Britain if Hitler had obeyed the Non-Aggression pact of 1939.



It's hard to say, but I agree that the USA may not have been able to pull it off--that is, the invasion of Normandy. By the time D-Day came around, the Germans had lost millions of men in the East during epic battles like Stalingrad and Kursk. But also don't forget the British had an empire and the commonwealth to tap from--India, Canada, South Africa, ANZ, etc.



Any American who says no country could ever beat them has a very tenuous grip on history, seeing as how the Americans have a pretty poor record since the surrender of Japan and Germany in 1945. Even before then, America has never been a very militaristic society--like Prussia, or Japan. It has always been the "arsenal of democracy--" like Britain, an economic power with the resources to hold out for a long campaign.

Answer 5

I am from the US, and I'm tired of it, too.



It was a group effort, but I will maintain until someone proves differently that had Churchill and the English people not been determined to hang on until we finally got involved, the war would have been much harder to fight, and taken much longer to win.



Churchill said in his book (the six volume set) on WWII that he was prepared, if England fell, to retire to Canada and fight on from there. He was a bulldog, and he wasn't about to let Hitler dominate the world, and I love him for that. He and his generals kept England and North Africa from falling to the Germans, and that's what allowed the war to be won by the Allies. The Allies absolutely had to storm Fortress Europe, and Churchill made sure that there was a place from which the invasion could be launched. The Russians did well, but they couldn't have beaten Hitler alone, either. It took, as I said, a group effort.



I'm proud of my country's contribution, but I will never believe that the US won the war alone.



A lot of people don't realize it, but after the war, the German generals agreed on one point--once the Western Allies established air superiority, the Germans lost the war. There was no way for them to successfully fight the onslaught from the sky. That air superiority was first established during the Battle of Britain when an outnumbered RAF refused to surrender the skies above England and the English Channel to the Germans who had more planes of better quality. Bless them for that.



When I hear someone say that we Americans won the war, I know I am speaking to someone who doesn't know much about the war. I can attempt to educate them, but if they refuse to listen, all I can do is walk away and hope they learn the truth at some later date.



The war was won by the Allies, not by any single country. That's just the truth.

Answer 6

Considering the Russians got the majority of their planes and tanks, and nearly all of their trucks, from Lend Lease aid, you have to take that into consideration when tallying up the "final score". The feeling that America won "by herself" may be historically inaccurate considering our French, British, Commonwealth, and Soviet Allies, what IS true is that Hitler was riding roughshod over Europe and North Africa from 1939 till Operation Torch was launched in 1942. One also has to remember that the Americans were fighting on two fronts (as were the British, but not in as large a number). Lastly, it was largely due to American technical innovation that the war came to a close (specifically, the atomic bomb).

Answer 7

It was all very complicated, wasn't it? For some reason the Americans are more susceptible to suspension of disbelief than Europeans, and their education is partly fact and great teaching, and partly propaganda and ra ra. The Brits used to be fed a lot of propaganda in the colonial times too, about how great England was and the empire, blah blah blah. So we all look at the good and ignore that which doesn't suit us. My only problem with the US part in World War II is that they should have joined in far earlier. Had the manpower and industrial might of the US been put into Europe in 1939, the situation would have been far different. Maybe Dresden would not have been bombed to smithereens, 6 million Jews would not have been killed, the London Blitz may not have happened, Pearl Harbor would have been avoided, Europe would not have had as much infrastructure to rebuild, and maybe the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs would have been unnecessary and the Cold War avoided.



You also should factor in that the military record of the US has not exactly been stellar since WW2, with Vietnam and now Iraq and Afghanistan.



Interesting question, I hope I've given you a few points to consider and perhaps research.

Answer 8

The short answer to your question is: Not every American thinks that. There are a lot of us who actually read history, compare various sources, and don't automatically pride ourselves on events that happened before we were born (assuming they are even things to take pride in).





It's easy to stereotype a country's people based on a relatively short exposure to them. I'm American, and during about two weeks spent in Australia's Northern Territory some years back, several Australians said unpleasant things about Americans and tried to pick fights with me. I tried not to let that experience color my image of Australians as a whole, as I'd heard enough horror stories of noisy, pushy American tourists to realize the trap of stereotyping one can fall into. There's always a grain of truth, but the trick is to see it in proper context. I've got some good friends from Australia now.



I also once had an English coworker who would constantly put down Americans and talk non-stop about it so that you could never get a word in edgewise. He was what you call a wanker. But I realize he was not the "representative" Englishman, and I've now got some good British friends and learn a lot from them about life in the UK, which I hope to visit one day.



As for the Allied victory in World War 2: The American contribution was certainly quite enormous and indispensable, especially in the Pacific theater, but it certainly is wrong to say that the US won the war "all by themselves".



The US retreated from Vietnam in 1975, failing to prevent the North Vietnamese takeover of the country, so the idea that "no one can ever beat the US" militarily is historically false. When I pointed this out to one fellow American he said that since Vietnam was a "conflict" and not a war, it didn't count.



Some people tend to let nationalism dominate their thoughts and words, and Americans are no exception to this. There are also apparently people in Britain who believe that their country has never lost a war: http://www.friedgold.co.uk/battles.html



If you want an American perspective on World War 2 (and lots of other stuff) that avoids all the flag-waving nationalism, try this book:

A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn

It's denounced as "leftist" and incorrect by US conservatives, while "left-leaning" types endorse it. My only advice is to have a look at it, compare what it says to what you were taught in class during your time in the US (as well as with what you learn of American history in Britain), and draw your own conclusions.

Answer 9

In reading the answers previously posted i found some issues in doseone714's anwer that needed clearing up.



The USA did not fight the Japanese ‘almost entirely’ by themselves – second Sino - Japanese war 1937-1945. 22% of Japanese troops who died in the war died in China. The 1945 Manchurian campaign between the USSR and Japan was fought over an area approx the size of Western Europe and defeated the 1,000,000 strong Kwantung army (part of the Imperial Japanese army) in an 11 day campaign. Also read up on the British 14th army’s campaign in Burma, Ghurkhas, and the British Indian army.



The USA’s industrial strength did help the UK and USSR’s war effort with vital munitions, fuel, vehicles, tanks, boots, airplanes ect but the UK helped the USA out too: Radar, sonar, uranium enrichment scientists for the Manhattan project, breaking the enigma codes, providing the USA with British R&D into rocket propulsion and without the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine the P-51 Mustang wouldn’t have been as effective as it was.



The plans for D-day had been in development since the evacuation of Dunkirk in 1940, UK and USA personnel both contributed to the planning not just the USA.



Every country fought tough battles in the war but the USSR undoubtedly bore the brunt against the Germans, the war in the east was a brutal war of hatred with both sides fuelled by years of propaganda, the Nazi regime had painted the Russians as an inferior race and essentially called for a war of extermination against the Bolsheviks, just compare the casualty figures of the USA and UK combined (approx 800,000) against Russia’s casualties in the war (estimates vary between 8 – 10 million).

The battles in the east were also on a much larger scale than those in the west, battles of the eastern front are among the costliest in warfare for example the sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad caused over 1 million casualties each. Just by reading a basic overview of the western and eastern campaigns it is plain to see that far more Germans died fighting the Russians than the Western allies.



'By measure of manpower, duration, territorial reach and casualties, it was as much as four times the scale of the conflict on the Western Front that opened with the Normandy invasion of June 1944. The Nazis' initial invasion of Russia, Operation Barbarossa, involved 3.2 million German troops and 3,000 aircraft, and even after the U.S.-led invasion of Western Europe, the vast majority of German military resources remained deployed against the Soviets.'*

*Time magazine 23rd may 2008 'remembering a red flag day'

Answer 10

So as a Brit do you feel mad at Americans because the start of WWII was the last time Great Britain was the leading world power, and it only survived due to the American helping hand? As top dog since WWII the U.S. is in a power slide. Look at history Germany, France,Spain, Rome all were on top once and "fell" from power.Whatever makes you upset about this is a waste of energy.American Vets from WWII don't feel they won it all by themselves, you have been talking with younger Americans who have grown up with poor history books and history classes.

Answer 11

Everyone feels proud about their country and patriotic about their accomplishments. Americans are no different. I'm fed up too with the Americans, but in a way, they did end the war by dropping the only atomic bomb and only nuclear weapon used in the history of the Earth.

Answer 12

Every allied country played a huge part in WW2.

Answer 13

Well we did cut off German reinforcements to the Germans in Russia so Russia could actually start pushing forward because they were losing territory fast.

We supported the British sent supplies and equipment to them to hold off longer.

We did help out the British a lot.

We came up with d-day invasion plans which helped win the war faster.

We fought japan almost entirely by ourselves and ended the war.

We fought some of the toughest battles in ww2.

As for the British came in 1.1 because they did the most part in the Africa corps.

Destroyed key places that the axis needed.

and held off the axis forces for 2 years.



PS. Russia would have been pushed back to the last bit of there country they had left if it wasn't for us now I am not saying we did all the work but if Russia played such a huge part then give me proof stop saying that if you don't have anything to back it up!!!

Answer 14

I don't....



The USSR had the most to do with the defeat of Nazi's than any other nation.





America thinks very fondly of their effort in WW2 because we profited the most from the war (meaning we came out better than we went in) and emerged a world superpower.

Answer 15

most of us don't actually think that, but it is only natural that we concentrate on our achievements

Answer 16

It is one more American delusion that I hope Vietnam war cured. It needs some analysis. Of the allies

France lost her country and is in a peculiar predicament of relying on her Colonial possessions in Africa with Pacific- Asian possessions occupied by Japanese.

Britain after PM, Neville Chamberlaine's blunder (of meekly yielding to the wishes of Hitler by way of appeasement) was subject to the worst pounding by German military Aircraft. Had no wherewithal to carry out resistance to German onslaught. Britain though lost her Pacific-Asian possessions (till Burma) with India also under attack from Japanese, threw all her colonial resources into War with all Empire co-operating. Britain's greatest strength was its Empire more than the American alliance. Indian soldiers being the biggest chunk of allied infantries, served in Asia, Africa & Europe.

USA was initially neutral and even reluctant. I was told that German submarines used to surface near American port-towns (Florida) to buy food & rations. With America joining the war (after Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour) the Allies got a shot in the arm and that pulled up the Allies from uncertainty to clinched the future course of War. Her money, resources, technology & industry were dedicated to win the war. America reaped rich experience, financial clout and an opportunity to test all her nascent Electronic technology which served as its future foundation as the technological super power. Far from battle fronts her civil society was ensconed in safety though men were away fighting. War industry in fact, brought prosperity with ready clientale (European nations) under some financial (monetary) arrangement that ensured her financial stability in future. America owes a lot to Europe for this. After the war of independence, wars with Spain, France & Mexico there was a peace interregnum lasting almost a century in which America prospered in peace-time.

Russia (or USSR by then) suffered the maximum in terms of manpower losses, extensive damage to the properties and general demoralisation in the ranks and degraded civil life, Russia survived because of Stalin. But for his methods, the country would have gone to pieces. Apart from bearing the brunt of a major part of 27 million killed soldiers. Total loss in War and related or allied events in that period is put at forty million.

In the beginning, after being an ally of Hitler's Germany that gave a large chunk of Poland to Russia (Konigsberg or Kaliningrad is still with Russia) by a quirk of fate Russians finished the German army in Berlin and other places before the other three allies closed in.The war in Stalingrad (Volgograd) was the worst that any city could suffer. They missed Hitler narrowly whose body was (as per Aryan tradition perhaps) cremated. Yet, its grievous losses were not acknowledged by the other allies. In retrospect if the Russian effort was taken away, the War would not have come to a close then but lingered on for a decade or more. It is the war on ground that really destroyed Hitler's Third Reich but at a great cost to the victor.

It is the way America financed, equipped and managed the War while the other three were facing the worst of War that makes them feel so. Each of the allies have played their assigned (or naturally ordained) role perfectly and that is the key to the war ending abruptly. In this America should be given credit for finishing the Pacific War abruptly with two atom bombs. Their motivation was to test the bombs (Uranium & Plutonium), the air delivery capability and the effect on others. Nowhere else and at no time in history this type of testing was resorted to, for which America doesn't get any credit (the War has already ended, damnit!). Her over-riding zeal to test newer doctrines of warfare, new command structures and newer weapons systems went on unchecked till 1992. USSR as an adversary was a restraing force as well as provocation. Restraing because of her comparative strength against the preeminence of USA as a military power; also USA was 'provoked' to finish off Communism that ultimately fell under it own weight with America not even acting as a catalyst. In fact America's role after 1992 was that of a Hyena.

Answer 17

I'll answer this again.

We, Americans, don't say we won WWII buy ourselves, we know and say it was won by all Allies.

When it comes to us being able to beat anyone invading the USA, no one could ever beat us.

You young Brits must be very insecure about your country, its very pathetic.

I'm very tired of you saying crap like this.

Get over your self.