Did the United States unilaterally win World War II?

Only 35 allies?

Published on October 2, 2004 By messybuu In Politics

So, I'm on IRC, and people are having the bot spout out tons of definitions. So, Dancinghobo has it define "world war ii" and the bot lists all the members of the Allies and all the members of the Axis. I notice something immediately: there aren't many allies! Only 35 other countries supported the United States in the war on Hitler! Not even major players such as Germany, Italy, and Japan supported the war! Compare that to the 49 other countries that supported the US in the invasion of Iraq, which do include Italy and Japan!

I don't know about you, but I'm furious with how the United States decided to take matters into its own hands and single-handedly stop Hitler from taking over the world. Not only was Hitler not an immediate threat to America, but there also was no evidence of concentration camps in Germany (and if there were, they were in such small numbers that they were insignificant). Besides, there were many other countries capable of more damage than Germany. Hell, the US had the atomic bomb!

What's even worse is that the United States had the gall to team up with the Soviet Union to stop Hussein, even though Stalin was "supposedly a bad guy." That move really bit us in the ass, eh? We should have been going to war with the Soviet Union at the same time we unilaterally fought Hitler and the Nazis.

It's a shame that America has not learned from its past mistake. Thank God, Johnny Depp and I live in France, the greatest place on Earth.

Comments (Page 2)

sandy2

on Oct 02, 2004

I DID NOT SAY STALIN WAS A GOOD LEADER, NOR DID I SAY CIVILIANS EQUATE TO MILITARY SUPPORT, BUT IF YOU WOULD READ WHAT I WROTE YOU WOULD SEE THAT MORE NON-AMERICAN ALLIES FOUGHT AND DIED IN THE WAR THAN AMERICANS.

Grim Xiozan

on Oct 02, 2004

What part of the American idea that was instilled into our soldiers 'don't die for your country, make the other die for their's' is not understood. Stalin pushed his Russians and did not care how many he lost to who were ill-equipped, shot by Commissar’s because they took a step back, if anything Germany deserves credit for decimating Russian forces and driving them back to Moscow and Stalingrad.

More troops were lost in China and Russia do to the mentality of 'greater numbers prevail' and the problem with that mentality is that you lose a s-load of people trying to take your opponent out. Seriously look at the tactics employed by the Red Army and China compared to American, British, etc. They just sent people in lines and waves at the enemy until they overwhelmed them and with that kind of contribution MORE PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS DIE than a strategic assault.

Tactics, Tactics, Tactics, are always apart of the end result of how many died fighting for your cause.

- GX

sandy2

on Oct 02, 2004

More people FAUGHT from the other allies, so therefore how can you say that it was a unilateral movement by the US?

drmiler

on Oct 02, 2004

So the united states lost an entire generation of men? 292,000 American millitary forces died in world war II, compared with a total of more than 21,000,000.

Your information is false! here's a link showing the actual numbers:

Link

On top of all that your American loss figures are for BOTH theaters (Europe and Pacific). And BTW GX never claimed we acted *unilaterily* in WW2. So *you* shove a sock in it.

Patriot_Flamethrower

on Oct 02, 2004

Sandy2, you are a HOOT.

It seems to me that the nation who loses the LEAST amount of soldiers in a war is the WINNER, and the most INTELLIGENT and EFFICIENT of all the war participants.

England lost more people than the USA did because their homeland was attacked by Germany (ever heard of the "Battle Of Britain", among others things?), and because they fought against Germany at least TWO YEARS longer than the USA did.

Anybody with a BRAIN and with even the most BASIC knowledge of history knows that were it not for the United States Of America entering World War 2 at the end of 1941, all of the people in western and eastern Europe would have either become LAMPSHADES or at the very least would all be speaking GERMAN right now, and all of the people in the far east would be under Japanese tyranny right now.

It's too bad that you are so ASHAMED of the United States Of America, sandy2. Perhaps you should move to Russia or France or Germany?

JE0192

on Oct 02, 2004

It’s unfortunate that in American histography, the role of the Soviet Union during World War II was seriously minimized with the advent of the Cold War. In fact, with the bipolarization of the world during that period, the role of the of both new superpowers in the conflict was notably increased histographycally. Hopefully one day we’ll see a balanced view of the War in each culture's dogmata.

sandy2

on Oct 02, 2004

First of all, I love America. I am not ashamed of America. I might be ashamed of Bush, but that is not the point. I was not saying we should not have entered World War II. I was responding to the title, by saying we DID NOT fight unilaterally in WWII.

Lee1776

on Oct 02, 2004

I'm with J.E. here. Russia did most of the fighting in the West. Us Americans play their roll in the war down.

But could the Russians have beaten the Germans themselves? In my opinion NO. The Western Allies tied up a large number of division, not only German division in the west but Japanese division in the East. This freed the Russian Divisions facing Japan to be moved to defend Moscow. Without those veteran forces Moscow would surely have fallen.

Now the real question is could we have defeated Germany without the Russians? IMO, not in an unconditional war. But most likely one of the few attempts on Hitler's life would have succeeded. The Nazi party would have been hunted down and executed. It was the Russians that wanted the unconditional surrender for all the Allies (for reasons we found out later). With out the Nazi party, I am sure a treaty would have been signed.

That's My Two Cents

Grim Xiozan

on Oct 02, 2004

My original comment never denied that Russians helped in fact by their tactic of "greater numbers prevail" they overwhelmed the Germans in the East, but one person who I originally replied said Russia's contribution to the war was greater than the US and Britain, that is simply not the case. It was equal to, not greater; neither could have won without the help of the other. Sandy than replied and said Russia contributed more and did more in the War because they had more casualties, I tried to point that well when you use more people in a bad tactic more people will die fighting for your side.

Sandy was than saying something else, and I tried to keep pointing out the tactic enforced by Stalin himself, after all the motto was 'Not One Step Back' for which many were shot for taking a step back. Of course the reason some troops were pulled from the East and moved to the West because Germany figured it could sweep the Americans and Brits off than concentrate all manpower on Russia, plus if they swept America and Britain off, Stalin might have made a treaty, who knows? Some guys love to speculate about all the possibilities and that is their hobby.

- GX

messybuu

on Oct 02, 2004

If you don't want to even admit that the USA was not unilaterily in WWII, then shove a sock in it.

It was unilateral in the John Kerry definition, which seems to mean that it's unilateral when a nation with the support of 49 other nations (some of them significant) goes to war. Hell, in WW2, around only 40 nations went to war against Germany and Japan, and many of those were as worthless as the ones involved in the Iraqi War. Can you believe Ethiopia is listed as an Ally?

Dr Guy

on Oct 05, 2004

Can you believe Ethiopia is listed as an Ally?

Ethiopia was listed as an ally for the same reason France, Belgium, Greece, Albania, Holland, Norway, Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Poland, among others were. They were conquered by the Axis! Italy had already conquered them before the war started.

But I got your point and humor in this article. I think the pencil noses that are splitting hairs with you are the ones who have a real problem with Kerry, they just cant bring themselves to admit it.

Thanks for a good piece of satire.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!