The problem is that the history of WWII is still written along national lines. Each country will claim that its participation was important because its people were killed and wounded in the victory over the Axis. This is especially true for Britain, the Soviet Union (Russia) and the US, who bore most of the burden. Canadian historians, whom I know most about, usually say how their country was an important element. However, they exaggerate it for the purposes of the home market.
My firm belief is that all three - UK, USSR, US - have an equal claim to the final victory, yet all were interdependent.
The British deserve credit for standing alone against Hitler for 1940-41, keeping the war going in the Middle East, and providing the essential bases for the invasion of Europe in 1944 and the Allied combined bomber offensive. However, they could not have done that without US Lend-Lease Aid or the willingness of the Soviets to bear much of the Nazi war effort for 1941-44.
The Soviets suffered far more than the Americans, British and other western Allies, yet their victories over the nazis were some of the most important. Stalingrad being perhaps the single most important, but also Kursk and the massive offensive operations in 1944-45 which impressed everyone. However, they couldn't have done this without US Lend-Lease aid, particularly in trucks because the Red Army lacked mobility. They too demanded a western front to take off some of the pressure on their Eastern war.
The United States had the industrial output that kept both the British and Soviets in the war far longer than their own resources could have lasted. But their effort was not wholly industrial and economic; the US put 16 million men into the war, and waged it in every theater at high cost. They provided most of the effort against Japan - the British helped immensely in Burma (thank you General Slim and 14th Army), and the Anzacs in New Guinea - but 80% of the effort was American. In Europe, the US provided more than half of the Allied Forces, and the crucial leadership through Eisenhower. Patton deserves special credit for being the best ass-kicker in the west. But they could not have won without the Soviets in the East and the British providing the bases in the UK and the Mediterranean.
My firm belief is that all three - UK, USSR, US - have an equal claim to the final victory, yet all were interdependent.
The British deserve credit for standing alone against Hitler for 1940-41, keeping the war going in the Middle East, and providing the essential bases for the invasion of Europe in 1944 and the Allied combined bomber offensive. However, they could not have done that without US Lend-Lease Aid or the willingness of the Soviets to bear much of the Nazi war effort for 1941-44.
The Soviets suffered far more than the Americans, British and other western Allies, yet their victories over the nazis were some of the most important. Stalingrad being perhaps the single most important, but also Kursk and the massive offensive operations in 1944-45 which impressed everyone. However, they couldn't have done this without US Lend-Lease aid, particularly in trucks because the Red Army lacked mobility. They too demanded a western front to take off some of the pressure on their Eastern war.
The United States had the industrial output that kept both the British and Soviets in the war far longer than their own resources could have lasted. But their effort was not wholly industrial and economic; the US put 16 million men into the war, and waged it in every theater at high cost. They provided most of the effort against Japan - the British helped immensely in Burma (thank you General Slim and 14th Army), and the Anzacs in New Guinea - but 80% of the effort was American. In Europe, the US provided more than half of the Allied Forces, and the crucial leadership through Eisenhower. Patton deserves special credit for being the best ass-kicker in the west. But they could not have won without the Soviets in the East and the British providing the bases in the UK and the Mediterranean.
