Why do people think that the US won WW2 in Europe?

  > The US cultural hegemony is real...

  > I’d drawn soldiers and fighter jets etcetera and they mostly had US flags...

I think this is the cleverest and most insidious thing the US has managed to do. For some reason, in spite of their appalling record: only nation to use atomic weapons on civilians, practiced apartheid for decades, has been continually at war with 'someeone' since the end of WWII, brutal prison system, death penalty, trigger happy police, etc. etc. so many people all over the world still see the USA as "cool". It's unfathomable to me.

I've said many times that; in a lot of European and west-leaning countries, you could literally sell people dog-shit and they'd chomp it down with relish --as long as you called it "American Style" and put a stars & stripes on the packet.

> Would the USSR have won against Germany if the US was not involved?

It's impossible to say for sure, but in my opinion, probably not. 1/3 of the trucks in the Red Army were built in America and supplied via lend lease, as were 1/3 of the aircraft in the Soviet Air Force. The trucks, in particular, were of significantly higher quality than native Soviet trucks. The US only provided something like 10% of the fuel used by the USSR during the war, but the fuel it did provide was of significantly higher quality. The USSR had no native production of high octane aviation fuel. All of the high quality fuel was provided by the US. Most (90%) of the tanks and guns were built in the USSR, but much of the tanks that were built were built from US raw materials. The USSR was especially poor in aluminum.

Many people (myself included) are of the opinion that wars are primarily won by logistics-- by having the right people in the right place at the right time with the right stuff. If lend-lease didn't supply the USSR, they wouldn't have had the trucks for rapid mobility, they wouldn't have had the aircraft to contest the Luftwaffe, they wouldn't have had the logistic capability for an offensive war. Could they have forced a WWI Western front style stalemate? Maybe. Hard to say.

> And what if the US joined the Axis powers in the war?

The Axis+US definitely win. Guaranteed. Germany fights a one front war against the USSR, the USSR fights a two front war against Germany in the West and the US in the East. Lots of people have speculated that if the USSR was not able to relocate the forces guarding the East against Japan that the USSR loses the Battle of Moscow. If those Eastern divisions were required to stay in the East to fight against the US, and were additionally diverting resources that would otherwise be used to replace losses against Germany, Germany would probably have taken Moscow.

US naval power by the end of '43 is enough that Britain probably loses command of the sea. Instead of Britain blockading Germany, the US is probably blockading the UK. The blockade would be much more serious for the UK than it was for Germany.

A major part of why Germany lost was that it didn't have enough fuel to fight a mobilized war. Even if the US did literally nothing other than divert lend-lease from providing material to the Allies to providing fuel and trucks to Germany instead, Germany probably wins the war without a single US boot on the ground. (getting that fuel from the US to Germany would require fighting through the aforementioned British blockade)

Interesting! Thats a view I have not been exposed to!

Just seems that the whole Vietnam having only a communist party with state capital system would make it obvious that we lost. But maybe people dont even know why we were there…

The tanks the Red Army has in 1939 were of incredibly poor quality and many of them were barely even tanks by later standards.

You're also changing the goalposts. We're talking about 1939, not 1941, which was after two years of herculean production.

https://defense.info/re-thinking-strategy/2018/10/oil-and-wa...

By 1939 Germany was at less than half of its peak, and only 24% (replaceable, 1936 composition) came from Romania+USSR.

The lend-lease act was after Stalingrad. And Stalingrad was as much as a founding battle as Boridino (Moscova for French) was against Napoleon. I think the war was won there, and after that it was just a matter of time and Hitler not having the atomic bomb. Without the lend-lease, going on an offensive war would have been harder, but the Soviet tanks were better than their german counterparts (the king tiger was too expensive to produce compared to the IS-2, and while the IS-2M was not really tested in battle, it probably could have faced the king, and the Luftwaffe was tied down trying to capitulate the British.

To me, the Africa campain - pre-torch - and the Stalingrad battle (plus the frontline stabilizing in the East) was enough as long a Japan did not enter the war.

And the British as well as the colonies forces were fundamental at holding Africa, so its not really "USSR won alone", it was more that the US not officially entering the war would not have a huge impact on the final result.

Also the passive resistance and the new management methods, pitting dissociated teams against each other was becoming a serious hindrance on innovation and lost time, as well as flawed design (think USSR quality in the 80s). I think this is inherent to this "natural strength/intuition/cleverness/[insert 'quality' here]" propaganda so used by the far right. If you're taught/led to believe "you're failing because of the jews/tzigans/communists" , when those are not here to take the blame, it become harder on your brain to justify your failures.