Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

In which Word War did the USA contribute most to allied victory?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • In which Word War did the USA contribute most to allied victory?

    In which Word War did the USA contribute most to allied victory?

    This is a interesting question I helped cover in a couple of tutes back in the glory days of the early to mid-seventies.

    Basic question was: In which World War did the USA contribute most to allied victory?

    I’m guessing most history buffs would say World War II?

    After all the US fought for a longer time (45 months), on a larger more ‘global’ scale in WWII compared to WWI where it just fought (or was at least engaged)on the Western front for under 19 months.

    Additionally of course in WWII, the American industrial base provided an immense amount of equipment, money, materiel, foodstuffs, infrastructure, transport and communication networks not only to her own forces but also to be put at the disposal of her allies.
    The ‘sinews of war’ from the ‘arsenal of democracy’ to use those cringe-inducing clichés if you will.

    In WWI, by contrast, the US, while providing large amounts of credit to the Western Allies simply was not ‘the arsenal of democracy’ in anything like the same way.
    Its expeditionary force for example was heavily reliant on heavy weapons (tanks, artillery and aircraft) on French equipment.

    Without belaboring the point(s) too much, the USA was simply far more involved, engaged and ‘motivated’ (due to Pearl Harbor and the sheer vileness of the Axis apposition) in WWII than the first go-round.

    However………. There is another way of looking at it…………Mainly about the immense psychological impact on Central Power morale of the US entry in World War One.

    Lot more to say on this but I’ll turn over to you gals and guys for now.

    Seem to be back on line from home now via Mozilla Firefox (whatever that is). Is it a different browser from Google.
    The internet! Give me strength!
    Regards lodestar

  • #2
    Definitely WW2.

    While there may have been a strong impact on German morale in WW1, the other CP were out of effective reach of US force projection.

    Stop complaining about the internet - conducting this discussion the old fashioned way would have been an exercise in patience beyond measure.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
      Definitely WW2.

      While there may have been a strong impact on German morale in WW1, the other CP were out of effective reach of US force projection.

      Stop complaining about the internet - conducting this discussion the old fashioned way would have been an exercise in patience beyond measure.
      Absolutely: WW2.

      In WW1, the USA contribution was its enormous potential that would eventually tell had the war continued:- as indeed mentioned. This perception added a further dimension to the plight of the Central Powers in addition to the effects of defeat in the field.

      Surely, there's nothing wrong with the use of "cringe-inducing clichés" if they embody essential truths: the USA was,indeed, the "Arsenal of Democracy"
      "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
      Samuel Johnson.

      Comment


      • #4
        WWII, without question. "The Arsenal of Democray".
        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by lodestar View Post
          In which Word War did the USA contribute most to allied victory?

          This is a interesting question I helped cover in a couple of tutes back in the glory days of the early to mid-seventies.

          Basic question was: In which World War did the USA contribute most to allied victory?

          I’m guessing most history buffs would say World War II?

          After all the US fought for a longer time (45 months), on a larger more ‘global’ scale in WWII compared to WWI where it just fought (or was at least engaged)on the Western front for under 19 months.

          Additionally of course in WWII, the American industrial base provided an immense amount of equipment, money, materiel, foodstuffs, infrastructure, transport and communication networks not only to her own forces but also to be put at the disposal of her allies.
          The ‘sinews of war’ from the ‘arsenal of democracy’ to use those cringe-inducing clichés if you will.

          In WWI, by contrast, the US, while providing large amounts of credit to the Western Allies simply was not ‘the arsenal of democracy’ in anything like the same way.
          Its expeditionary force for example was heavily reliant on heavy weapons (tanks, artillery and aircraft) on French equipment.

          Without belaboring the point(s) too much, the USA was simply far more involved, engaged and ‘motivated’ (due to Pearl Harbor and the sheer vileness of the Axis apposition) in WWII than the first go-round.

          However………. There is another way of looking at it…………Mainly about the immense psychological impact on Central Power morale of the US entry in World War One.

          Lot more to say on this but I’ll turn over to you gals and guys for now.

          Seem to be back on line from home now via Mozilla Firefox (whatever that is). Is it a different browser from Google.
          The internet! Give me strength!
          Regards lodestar
          It's actually a much better browser than Google, which restricts many functions.
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #6
            WW2 in my opinion

            “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” -- Albert Einstein

            The US Constitution doesn't need to be rewritten it needs to be reread

            Comment


            • #7
              WW 2 clearly. The US largely won the Pacific War on its own. In Europe, the US made a huge contribution to winning. Yes, the Russians paid in blood for victory. The US paid in steel so-to-speak.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                WW 2 clearly. The US largely won the Pacific War on its own. In Europe, the US made a huge contribution to winning. Yes, the Russians paid in blood for victory. The US paid in steel so-to-speak.
                And food, oil, copper, textiles and a host of other products and raw materials sent overseas to allies, along with thousands of aircraft, hundreds of ships and millions of American soldiers. The amount of lost material sitting on the bottom of the world's oceans alone is worth an incalcuable fortune.
                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #9
                  WW2, not only in terms of manpower committed, but also phenomenal production of war materiel. During the 1930s a large European country like Poland fielded something like 400 combat aircraft and expected to fight WW2 with 400 combat planes. It was believed to be sufficient for national defense. The Americans produced 295,000 combat aircraft by the end of the war.

                  "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
                  --Frederick II, King of Prussia

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    unfair question I would say as in WW1 there is no pacific theater , if even compare ONLY ETO then its more fair
                    in both wars its impossible to win w/o US support
                    but in WW1 lets not forget w/o US support there was NO CHANCE of an entente victory or even favorable peace as Russia was out of the War
                    in WW2 ETO only I do not think US support was as critical in WW2 as it was in WW1
                    my humble opinion

                    Comment

                    Latest Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X