How much did America actually do in WW1 and WW2?

How much did America actually do in WW1 and WW2?

Well if America hadn't joined World War One, even as late as they did, the Allies would've most likely still won but the war would've gone on till at least 2019 or 2020. Those 10,000 American doughboys arriving every day in the spring of 1918 ready to fight like it was 1914 and die held the Germans back during their final great offensive and drove into Germany with an offensive of their own which finally led to the Armistice on November 11th.

If Americans don't join WW2, the Russians still eventually rape the Germans in Europe. Japan probably remains an empire though and conquers Australia.

>the war would've gone on till at least 2019 or 2020
I have my doubts that Germany could have fought for another century

Their factories won both wars.

In WW1s case, the entrance of the United States at the same time Russia left helped to finish Germany off.

In WW2, American strategic bombing and their smaller land campaign helped to take pressure off of the USSR.

It's difficult to see either war ending the way it did if there was a patch of ocean where the US is.

Depends on when you ask

if the japs invaded australia in 1943 and did some basic infrastructure work I'd at least have faster internet

...

Wow, thanks for pointing out bud
*1919 or 1920

>the war would've gone on till at least 2019 or 2020

...

>Japan invades Australia
with what army?

Yanks in WWII helped create eastern bloc and propped commies to global power.

Would have been a European bloc instead of just an Eastern bloc otherwise.

Captcha: West Burgers

Yeah man I'm sure that the UK alone would have had the negotiating power at the end of the war to convince the USSR to not just steamroll all of mainland Europe and make the whole thing communist instead of just the Eastern Bloc.

All efforts inclusive:

WW1-Bout 5 percent in Europe.

WW2-15 percent in Europe/North Africa, and 50 percent in the Pacific that made the difference and won that theatre. For reference, I'm putting 20 on Britain and 65 on the USSR in Europe, and excluding smaller countries for the sake of simplicity. Canada and India are difficult because they did much more than most non big 3 countries, but not enough to be compared to them, so they're also excluded for the purpouse of simple percentages.

The problem with threads like this is that people try and use imprecise words to express precise proportions that they have in their heads, or worse yet try and use words to IMPLY a higher contribution through connotation, and when people call them out on it they get mad and cite the strict, literal definition of the words they used as evidence they weren't exaggerating. Numbers will make people madder but it's seriously much better than the alternative in a non-academic shit-flinging enclosure like this.

>All efforts inclusive

If that's including factories, you're dumb.

It'd be easiest to lump Canada, India, etc. in with Britain under a united "Commonwealth" header desu.

>50 percent in the Pacific

america was literally the only relevant player in the asian theatre, everything british was steamrolled by '42 and never recovered

The Chinese, as incompetent as they were, tied down a lot of the Japanese forces.

>50 percent in the Pacific
More like fucking 90%, the Brits got royally fucked in the early stages of the Pacific theatre and the Soviets only contributed at the very, very end of the war. The Pacific was America's island slog.

70 years of American propaganda

Factories are the reason america is that high despite the fact that it only became a significant player on the ground after Stalingrad and Kursk, when the Germans were losing, and after the British and other allies had done the lion's share winning North Africa.

The most decisively impactful thing the US did in Europe was its role in the Western Front, and even then that was a group effort and only made possible by Britian resisting anti-civilian warfare for years.

Stalingrad and Kursk were not won because of Lend Lease, no matter how much americans want that to be true. What the US did was greatly increase the mobility of the Russian Army to quickly capitalize on the victories like those, but the writing was on the wall in any timeline.

Britain also provided substantial aid to the soviet union, you don't hear them milking it.

This is nonsense.

What, would you have preferred the Japanese controlling all of mainland china and probably much more, with vastly more troops and full control of the economy of greater Asia, because they never got resisted by the chinese before you got there?

Or would you like to be dealing the with the 200,000 that died in the Burma campaign.

The Japanese lost 700,000 men in eleven days to the soviets, and you're unhappy with 50 percent?

The Americans were the only reason for Japanese surrender. The Soviets could only threaten Imperial holdings in Manchuria, they didn't have the navy to launch an invasion of Japan even if they wanted to. The United States fought against the IJN who were largely better supplied and funded than the IJA China.

Part of the reason the japanese were so excited about getting Imperial holdings was that having an empire is beneficial economically and gives you access to important resources. Losing Imperial holdings, not to mention losing hundreds of thousands of men and a fortune in military equipment defending them, isn't some non-issue when you're at war.

The fact that the Japanese wouldn't have lost without the US doesn't mean the US did 100 percent of the work, or that only the US inflicted damage on their operation and weakened them militarily and economically.

If that's principle we're using, the USSR did 100 percent of the work in Europe