I in no way denigrate the tremendous contributions or enormous sacrifices of our allies. But even Churchill well understood that American manufacturing capabilities and American military participation were THE decisive factors. From the moment we entered the war against Germany, he knew well that ultimate total victory was assured. You’re the first person I’ve ever encountered who takes issue with these obvious facts.
Your comment was ‘mostly equipped and led’. That is simply not true. The UK and Canada were not mostly equipped by the US, and
I assume your comment is related to the thread argument which is about France and Europe, so we are discussing NW Europe 1944-45. Although if we are discussing the global war, again, America did not equip nor clearly ‘lead’ the Allies.
Of course, American entry was a huge factor in Allied victory. My issue is your assertion that American entry meant Britain esp, and Canada, therefore somehow became lesser powers by US entry. That ergo US entry means the US leads the good guys from Dec 41 to Sept 45. That is simply wrong. The Allies and allied victory relied HUGELY on the British: men and material. Not to mention the military and intelligence scope of the war.
It might shock people, both UK and US, how crucial right to war’s close the British importance was. Just how huge the British contribution was in materiel, let alone men. Without British materiel, there would have been no Day, no land campaign, no victory, no liberation of the death camps in the West.........not to mention the allied victories in N Africa, Sicily and Italy.
And the Canadian contribution was also huge, comparable to the UK and US and hugely out of proportion for its population. Again, money, men and material.
Your comment was ‘mostly equipped and led’. That is simply not true. The UK and Canada were not mostly equipped by the US, and for most of the war, the Allied effort was as led by the British as the US, if not more so. Only in July 44 did the US have more men fighting the Axis than the UK.
I assume your comment is related to the thread argument which is about France and Europe, so we are discussing NW Europe 1944-45. Although if we are discussing the global war, again, America did not clearly equip nor clearly ‘lead’ the Allies. The British, Commonwealth and Canadian forces were mostly equipped by their own material. And the US in fact used many British-Canadian inventions and material in all theatres. From Spitfires in the Pacific to Churchill flamethrowers in Europe. Even the P-51 was in origin a British plane.
Of course, American entry was a huge factor in Allied victory. My issue is your assertion that American entry meant Britain esp, and Canada, therefore somehow became lesser powers by US entry. That ergo US entry means the US leads the good guys from Dec 41 to Sept 45. That is simply wrong. The Allies and allied victory relied HUGELY on the British: men and material. Not to mention the military and intelligence scope of the war.
It might shock people, both UK and US, how crucial right to war’s close the British importance was. Just how huge the British contribution was in materiel, let alone men. Without British materiel, there would have been no Day, no land campaign, no victory, no liberation of the death camps in the West.........not to mention the allied victories in N Africa, Sicily and Italy.
And the Canadian contribution was also huge, comparable to the UK and US and hugely out of proportion for its population. Again, money, men and material.