during world war,which u.s. contribution to war exceeded that of either great britain or the soviet union?
442004
As I see it, it wasn't a competition but a joint effort.\n\nI am sure other folks will remind you that American only joined in very very late and when they finally realised Germany was a threat to them (go and Google for the intercepted telegram that made America's mind up).  Also, what was the Civilian/domestic toll that America paid?\n\nOdd to use a war as a way of scoring points that one Country is 'better' than another.\n\n\nUPDATE FOLLOWING MESSAGE:\n\n"Subject: dumb \n\nMessage: dumb *** this is a question from my history test so next time if you can't answer the question correctly then don't answer"\n\nMy Response:\n\n1. Debate don't insult - it betrays your age\n2. Look at my response ... it is an answer just not framed in a multiple choice.  Think outside a basic question - maybe you will get respect for a pointing out that it was a joint effort not a competition.  You cannot look at one statistic in this sort of thing as a 'full' answer - maybe that is what your teacher is looking for.\n3. Appreciate people taking the time to write ANYTHING - if you don't like it then dismiss it and move on.\n4. Do your own homework!\n\n\nIn answer to your question:\n\nA)On the basis of casualties I would be astounded if the USSR didn't field massively more troops\nB) Russia lost c 10,000,000 (+12M civilian/Holocaust victims) US lost c400,000\nC) Looks way the most likely especially as the US wasn't domestically at war and could continue normal industry
122750
No. Thue USA did not join. One of the reasons the League of Nations was not successful was because the USA, which was a powerful country, was not part of it.
678534
Good question. I would say more people can work during war time.
93340
World War 11? \n\nI hope you mean WWII, future boy!\n\n\nEDIT: I don't mean to disparage the contribution your father made to his country...
219389
The biggest military blunder of WWII was the German's invasion of russia.  The Manpower and supplies it cost germany to open that front cost them the war which i guess for me being jewish is a good thing.  Another huge failure of WWII was the League of Nations Failure to stop hitler before he annexed austria and checoslovakia because nthat gave hitler the courage to go on to attack Poland creating the war itself.  In addition had Japan not attacked Pearl harbor THe Us had never gotten involved allowing Both hitler and Hideki Tojo to go on attacking virtually unchecked and probably allowing them to expand there empires and possably still empiralistic today.
262116
I would have to say FDR & Winston Churchill with World War II. Harry Truman finished up with his policies towards the end of the War. Truman said America wouldn't make any profits off of War and suffering of oppressed nations from the results of World War II. FDR helped America pull it's self out of the depression with his politics, and administration of laws. Churchill followed suit in the U.K..
875259
America's role in WWI was not as large as it was in WWII (although in both wars the U.S. entered the war late - for more information I would compare the information between the two wars check here for a start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states_of_america#World_War_I_and_II\n\nGood Luck!!!
345615
Invading Russia & not invading Britain.  If they'd taken out the UK in 1940 and kept the Russians as allies it would have been impossible for the Americans to fight in Europe after Pearl Harbour.  \n\nBy the time Roosevelt had defeated the Japanese and got round to taking on the Germans it would have been the late 1940's.  Hitler would have had a working atomic bomb and enough jet aircraft to drop one on New York.
249611
America "doing laundry"?!?!  That is as insulting and ignorant as it is completely wrong.  And using casualty figures clouds the issues even more.  How many Soviet officers and soldiers did Stalin and his Commissars kill?  And to that we can add the poor tactics and training of the average Soviet "peasant and worker" troops who were slaughtered as they attacked directly into German lines.  But that isn't the question here.\n\nAs for why France and the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) fell so easily in 1940, we must look at these countries during the "interwar years" between WWI and WWII.  Both the UK and France suffered greatly during the “Great War” and their people wanted nothing to do with anything military.  Coupled with this was the mindsets in both countries military that tanks were a fluke invention and even if used, they were nothing more than mobile pill boxes.  Add to this the fact the British went back to pushing horse Cavalry over tanks even through WWII and you can see a trend.\n\nThe British also had a doctrine called “Limited Liability” where the Royal Navy was favored, along with the Royal Air Force (RAF) why the Army was relegated to a colonial police force.  Some of this came from the theories of prominent thinkers (Douhae, spelled wrong) who advocated independent air forces and mass bombing campaigns.  This appealed to an island nation wanting nothing to do with another land war in Europe.  Also, even in the face of German re-armament, the Spanish Civil War, and the Invasion of Poland (which the USSR helped with), neither the British, under Chamberlain, nor the French prepared for the coming war.\n\nFrance, after stating they would NEVER fight another war like WWI, immediately started preparing for another WWI in the 1920s.  Their doctrine for the coming war was “methodical battle”.  A series of defensive battles using tightly controlled units to stop the German advances while the Allies prepared their armies for the attack..a few years later.  The Germans simply over-ran the French lines before they could be set-up.\n\nFor the Germans, the interwar period saw them devote 10% of their military to conducting an After Action Review of WWI.  They reformed their Armed Forces from the top down.  They got rid of the “nobility” or privileged class restriction for the officer corps and instead set up formal education for officers similar to West Point, Annapolis and the War College in the US.  They conducted secret research into tanks with the Soviets in the 1920s with full support of the Soviet government.  When Hitler arrived, he had a professional core for his army and only lacked the production capacity for war.  This was one of the reasons he took Czechoslovakia as its tank factories were some of the best in the region. Germany incorporated the Czech tank into their army and named it the PZ-38T.\n\nWhen Germany entered France in 1940, they entered only after training extensively through the previous winter and only after they had integrated the newer PZIII and PZ IV Panzers into their training.  That said, a bulk of German Armor was still PZI Machine Gun tanks (small versions of the UK Matilda), and PZII training tanks (Armed with 20mm cannon and a machine gun).  The French and British had better tanks, and more of them.  However, the German combined arms tactics and superior mobility of its infantry, combined with some very stupid decisions by the Allies, along with very possible treason by those destined to be the Vichy French, combined to cause the fall of France only a few months later.\n\nThat’s the short rundown for a very much larger topic.  It must be noted that the only foul ups in this operation (i.e. allowing the BEF and French forces to evacuate from Dunkirk) occurred when Hitler got involved directly in military operations.  This set the tone for the rest of WWII.  When Hitler stayed out of the way, the Germans did well.  When he waded in like a
667322
Boy, there's a debate.\n\nShort Answer: The United States, and it did it by spend the Soviet Union into oblivion. The USSR suffered the fate of most empires -- it overextended itself and ran of the resources necessary to sustain its empire.\nBut the US did it at a terrible cost. We are now stuck with a military-industrial complex that is bleeding us drive and could very soon threaten our own superiority.\n\nSo philosophical answer: The Cold War isn't over yet, and we could still lose.
296820
The US is by far, number one in almost every way. Number two is where the real debate is. You could argue China because of shear numbers if nothing else. Russia still has a formidible defense, although their technology is way behind. Britain could make a good arguement for being number two, especially since their navy is top notch. Israel probably has the second best air force (and in some ways their air force may be the most technologically advanced).
1145292
World War II, also WWII, or the Second World War, was a global military conflict that took place in 1939–1945. It was the largest and deadliest war in history, culminating in the Holocaust and the dropping of the atom bomb.
175023
1) The US government, despite its pledge of neutrality, extended a large amount of credit to Great Britain starting in 1940; the British used it to buy everything from guns and ammunition to merchant ships.  US merchant ships carried cargo to England before we were involved in the war (US merchant ships were also supplying Nazi Germany, but on a much smaller scale).  President Roosevelt persuaded Congress to approve the "Lend-Lease" program, in which we gave Britain about 100 old US Navy destroyers in exchange for leases on British territory in the Western Hemisphere.\n\n2) Hitler marched his troops into the Rhine, the Sudetenland, the rest of Czechoslovakia, and Austria over the protests of Britain, France, and the US.  On Sept. 1, 1939, Nazi Germany invaded Poland, thereby starting WW2 in Europe.  The Poles fought valiantly against Hitler's forces; when they took refuge behind the Vistula River, and it seemed they could hold on until the arrival of the British and French, Stalin entered the war and invaded Poland from the east.  About 2 weeks later it was all over for the Poles.\nStalin also invaded Finland on the flimsy pretext of protecting his northern frontier.  The Finns, although outnumbered and outgunned, held off the Soviets for several months.\nJapan annexed Korea in 1910.  The militarists of Japan also invaded Manchuria (China) in 1933, trying to create what they called the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere."  In their delirious minds, they thought that Asia would thrive if all of it was under their rule.  The rest of Asia disagreed.  Japanese brutality in Manchuria caused the US to enact a trade embargo against Japan.  The Japanese used the embargo as an excuse for the attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, thereby precipitating America's entry into WW2.\n\n3) WW2 is thought of as "the good war" because in modern times, the difference between dictatorship and freedom was never so stark.  On one side were the Axis powers, odious dictatorships all, engaging in sneak attacks, breaking every treaty they signed, and trampling on the freedoms of the sovereign nations they invaded (not to mention those of their own people).  Arrayed against them were the Allies, consisting (mostly) of the democratically-run, freedom-loving nations of the world.  Hitler and Tojo thought that "Deutschland über Alles" and "Dai Nippon" would rule the world through their "Übermensch" and "Bushido" warriors.  But both of them underestimated the fury of aroused democracies.  To paraphrase Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack: "I fear that all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."  He was right.\nThe Soviets' entry on the Allied side of the war complicated the moral equation a bit.  They had a history of engineering mass repression, purges, and widespread starvation against their own people ever since the Bolshevik triumph in the Russian Revolution of 1918.  Stalin was quite happy to help Hitler carve up eastern Europe when it suited his purposes.  And the Soviets, despite warnings that the Nazis were preparing to invade Russia, supplied the Nazis with much-needed food and fuel right up to the day of the Nazi invasion in 1940.
610039
Look at George Keennan article on the soviet union, \n\nBasicly \n\nthought communism was in the long run gonna die, \n\nDidn't want to start a world war, as communism thought would go carzy if near death\n\nTHought in long run us, stronger than soviets,
505108
Essentially, WW2 was a result of this and other factors, including unrealistic expectations and unresolved conflicts from WW1. Millions were killed in Europe, Russia, Asia Minor, Asia, China, the Pacific Island nations, the US troops fighting in those theaters of war, and involved virtually the entire world. The United States emerged as the leading powerhouse and the Soviet Union a major nemesis until its collapse in 1989-1990.
343885
Hahaha! I like the spirit but perhaps this should be answered by someone unbiased and neutral.. that's me!\n\nWhile the USSR was truly mighty once upon a time, currently the strongest military force on the planet is the USA, whether you like it or not. Russia still has a formidable arsenal but they are certainly not as powerful as the US of A. Also, their economy will not be able to bear the strain of a full fledged modern conflict and so the USA it is again.
560944
I don't know any Americans who think that, but it's nice to know that British people want all the credit. It wasn't dependent on any one single country. It would have been impossible for Britain alone (or America alone) to defeat all of the Axis powers of World War II. There were so many countries on the Allies side that helped defeat Hitler. Even people in Germany helped. Here is a list of all the countries that participated in World War II and I think that credit should be given to every single one of them.