So you are saying the German offensive was successful but couldn’t be
sustained. But if the Allies had no Americans or American equipment, 4.6
million men vs 6.5 million men….they would still have won. That despite
the fact they could make no progress against a German army with up to a
million less troops before Russia fell.
I said tactical success for the Germans as in that they gained ground but ultimately it was a strategic failure as the ground gained wasn't that important and it effectively marked the end of Germany's offensive capability.
On November 11th 1918 when the hundred day offensive ended and Germany surrender German manpower stood at 3,562,000
This was pitted against 2,559,000 French, 1.9 million British, 1.9 million American and 190,000 Belgium troops.
As you can see the German where outnumber by the French and British alone.
If you look at the causalities, the French sustained 531,000, the British sustained 412,000 and the Americans 127,000.
Not to belittle the American contribution because it was significant, but when you look at the force strength after the battle and the casualties sustained, the American force was the smallest of the 3 main Allied armies, accounting for less than a third of the force that partook in the battle. So to claim America saved Europe, is an unjustified boast.
And of course we haven't even mentioned the fact that America played a much smaller role n the defeat of Germany's world war I allies, in Austria Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria, where it was the combined efforts of the European allies including Italy that resulted in their defeat. This is to say nothing of Russia's and Serbia's war efforts as although they were ultimately beaten, the very fact they were in the fight at the start ensured France did did not fall.
So no one is belittling America's contribution to that conflict, I simply have issues with unwarranted boasting.
WW2 is a more difficult calculus because Germany collapsed from the East
and West. But the first period of the war saw the collapse of France
and its European allies. Britain was saved by the channel, but clearly
in grave difficulty until the convoy system from America was
established. It was no offensive threat without America and D Day.
Yes they where saved by the channel. Just as it had saved them against Napoleon. It was an insurmountable barrier that Germany could not overcome without a surface navy to match defeat the Royal Navy. The German U-Boat campaign caused concerned but it was always a manageable situation for the British. The German's never intended to be at war with Britain at that point and had too few U-Boats. Yes you can argue no offensive threat and no D-Day, although the British did launch offensives in North Africa with by and large British equipment.
Could the Russians have pulled it off in a single front war? Perhaps,
the battle of Kursk has always been viewed as a major victory. But by
then the German forces were much eroded, operating with excessively
long supply lines.
A difficult question to answer. I think they probably could of won the war on their own, but at much greater cost and a lot slower. Its also equally possible that some sort of peace deal could have happened with the two sides fighting each other to a stand still. The Germans had already lost the war before Kursk, it was just a question of timing, and more recent analysis of the Battle of Kursk point out that it wasn't that a significant battle in world war with causalities being relatively small compared to other battles on the Eastern front. Supply lines where an issue throughout the campaign into Russia, if you think they where bad at Kursk can you image how much worse they would have been when they were considerable further east.
How formidable are the Russians, the Ukraine paints a different picture.
Whatever about lend-lease Russia could not have survived World War 2 without Ukraine. As for the modern conflict between the two, it really doesn't say much about how formidable the Russian's war during World War 2, there was almost 80 years between the two conflicts.
These are imponderables. But suppose Russia defeated Germany by itself,
what sort of Europe would have emerged. Surely something more like East
Germany. Once again the American role was indispensible and continued to
be through the whole Cold War.
Yes it was indispensable in the Second World War and Europe ending up in a much better place for it. But again it was a combined effort of several major powers that contributed to the defeat of Axis. Whether it be an American, British or Russia person saying we won the war (and be we, the person saying it didn't actually partake in the war his grandfather might have), it comes across as obnoxious not to the acknowledge the effort of the other other major Allies. Could America have defeated Germany on its own without Britain or Russia. Maybe but at the cost of millions more of its own soldiers lives.