If the USA hadn't both materialized and stepped in, there's a pretty good chance that these three flags would be the only ones left on the planet.
.
You're welcome.
Not true, the Germans were already starting to lose the war and overextending themselves before America joined. Sure, you helped, but you weren't the defining factor in winning the war. Stop with your "you're welcome" bullshit.
Good luck winning without our weapons, vehicles, food, and soldiers.
They were well on their way to taking Britain. We would not have sent soldiers otherwise. Why would we die on your behalf if you were winning the fight? Wouldn't it have been far more prudent to focus entirely on the enemy who ACTUALLY ATTACKED US if Britain and the resistance groups had any chance of winning?
And the eastern front wasn't going too well either, the Soviets would've been frozen and overrun without our weapons, vehicles, and us reopening the western front while starting a southern one. General Winter was just as cruel to the Russians as the Germans, even if the commisars were cruelest of all.
I didn't say you didn't help, I'm just saying you didn't do all the work and that the US was not the defining factor in winning the war and you shouldn't act like it either. Britain and the USSR endured so much more and were in the actual danger zone during a longer period of time. They deserve more thanks than the US, though the US deserves a lot of thanks as well. The US wouldn't have helped at all if it weren't for British intelligence, spies and all their clever plans to predict and fool the Germans. They wouldn't have had much of a chance if the Russians literally didn't throw themselves at the Germans on the eastern front. And while the Russians got hit hard by winter, the Germans didn't get a foothold there, which was more of a destructive blow to Germany than the USSR. Also you didn't really provide weapons. Resources, yes, but the US military wepaons at that time were not better than anyone elses. It's after the war you got the technological advantage...
You seriously believe the US wasn’t outfitting the Brits? US civilians were even outfitting them. The lend lease act provided US civilian weapons for the British military. The Nazis has blockaded several ports to prevent US and Canadian materiel from reaching Europe.
No, you were not the defining factor. If you would have taken away the Brits or the USSR from the equation it would have had the same effect. They were just as much a defining factor. Sure the lend lease helped, the new troops helped, but they were not the defining factor. You weren't the major reason for winning the war. If Germany had taken Brittany and the USSR there's no way in hell the US would have been able to take it back. I'm aware you helped out a lot, but not to the point that you're worth more thanks than the other allies.
Having a staging point into France was damned convenient. But it was just that, covenient. We could've dedicated more resources to the Africa campaign, pushed into Europe from the south. It would've been far bloodier, far more costly in every sense of the word, but it could've happened.
Then we'd push through the Pacific and use China as another staging point, carve through a portion of the fallen Soviet Union to open a pseudo second front.
Resistances would still be fighting damn hard, coordinating operations with them would be much easier without Uncle Joe sabotaging us.
But our mission would not have been the liberation of Europe. It'd be keeping the Reich from conquering the US. If all the resources dedicated to the western theater were instead divided between killing Tojo and fortifying the East coast, we would have never fallen. The war would've stabilized into a cold war with the US, Australia, and the Chinese republic in an arms and resources race against the Nazis and Italy.
Yes, but all that is theoretical. As soon as one of the allies would have fallen that's a lot of resources Germany can redirect in other directions. But as you admit, you wouldn't have been able to defeat Germany without the relentless and vast amount of Soviet troops or the British technological advancementes and intelligence. I mever said anything about Germany defeating the US on US soil, because then they would have the same problems as you did when facing them, crossing the Atlantic and getting a foothold. But that's not my point. My point is that some of the current generation of Americans, like princessmonstertru, think you did all the fighting and deserve all the praise in the world. If you stopped with the "you're welcome" like the stuck up bully in 3rd grade I wouldn't care if you took SOME of the honor. The 33% or so that you deserve. A little less if you count in French and Polish resistances.
.
I also forgot to mention Canada and Australia, they deserve praise too.
No, we would've been able to liberate europe without Britain, the Soviets, or neither. It just would've been costlier.
It's basic math.
We alone had more industry than everyone else combined. Unlike the Soviets we had competent and experienced officers who knew better than to send human waves against machine guns. Nevermind having high altitude bombers, Airborne soldiers, and commandos capable of striking behind lines or establishing Allied Strongpoints.
British intel saved countless lives and operations, but as dark as it sounds, we had bodies to spare.
Frankly, I credit France and Poland as being more critical and effective than Britain or Stalin at winning the war. But it was still the United States that the war would've been lost without. No ifs, ands, or buts will change that.
But if we never tried to liberate europe, leaving Britain and the USSR the only major powers standing against Germany, then we only would've had to not be conquered. Hence my prior comment.
You would definitely have lost wotjout Britain lr the Soviets. You're really discrediting them and their part in winning the war. Sure you had more industry and men to spare, but without Allies in Europe it would have been next to impossible to get a foothold. There are lots of and, ifs, or buts in the equation. I will say that you could POSSIBLY have defeated Germany alone. But it would have taken years and cost too much for both sides, as I already mentioned. And then the outcomes are still not certain. You had to fight and give a hell of a lot even with allies, there's no way you could have done it alone or even without one or two. Not even with men to spare. The war would probably have been lost without the US, but it would have been lost without Britain or the Soviets as well. So, back to my main point: you were a part of a joint force that together took down Germany, so stop making it sound like you were the biggest guy in the fight. You were not. You were part of a group effort.
You also need to consider all the mistakes the Germans did that contributed a lot to their downfall, and that's to no one's credit, rather their (Germany's) discredit.
And all the resistances in the conquered countries. There's too many factors.
.
You're welcome.
They were well on their way to taking Britain. We would not have sent soldiers otherwise. Why would we die on your behalf if you were winning the fight? Wouldn't it have been far more prudent to focus entirely on the enemy who ACTUALLY ATTACKED US if Britain and the resistance groups had any chance of winning?
And the eastern front wasn't going too well either, the Soviets would've been frozen and overrun without our weapons, vehicles, and us reopening the western front while starting a southern one. General Winter was just as cruel to the Russians as the Germans, even if the commisars were cruelest of all.
Then we'd push through the Pacific and use China as another staging point, carve through a portion of the fallen Soviet Union to open a pseudo second front.
Resistances would still be fighting damn hard, coordinating operations with them would be much easier without Uncle Joe sabotaging us.
But our mission would not have been the liberation of Europe. It'd be keeping the Reich from conquering the US. If all the resources dedicated to the western theater were instead divided between killing Tojo and fortifying the East coast, we would have never fallen. The war would've stabilized into a cold war with the US, Australia, and the Chinese republic in an arms and resources race against the Nazis and Italy.
.
I also forgot to mention Canada and Australia, they deserve praise too.
It's basic math.
We alone had more industry than everyone else combined. Unlike the Soviets we had competent and experienced officers who knew better than to send human waves against machine guns. Nevermind having high altitude bombers, Airborne soldiers, and commandos capable of striking behind lines or establishing Allied Strongpoints.
British intel saved countless lives and operations, but as dark as it sounds, we had bodies to spare.
Frankly, I credit France and Poland as being more critical and effective than Britain or Stalin at winning the war. But it was still the United States that the war would've been lost without. No ifs, ands, or buts will change that.
But if we never tried to liberate europe, leaving Britain and the USSR the only major powers standing against Germany, then we only would've had to not be conquered. Hence my prior comment.
And all the resistances in the conquered countries. There's too many factors.