Gonz said:
I found what I believe to be a clearer way to say what I meant
Without all the "smaller " armies, the allies may have lost. Without the US the allies would have lost.
perhaps there lies the part the other allies have the problem with, the arrogance of stature that serves to belittle the coalition of armies into 'we did more than you did and you should be damn well grateful until we say otherwise'.
the usa provided vital arms, support, troops and knowhow during both world wars. they were not the decisive force. i do not believe one single country was, and each tiny scrap of support was vital.
without the victories of the royal air force in 1940 the uk would have fallen, and they were aided by polish airmen, czechs, french and many others from occupied europe. without the victories in north africa the german army wouldn't have retreated into italy and begun their retreat.
without the work of the special operations executive and resitance movements in france and the low countries much valuable intelligence would have never been sourced. if my meory serves me the enigma machines so vital to codebreaking were taken by british ships and coded at bletchley.
without the russian armies starting the fightback in 1943 the war would have dragged on and on - whether the uk were prevented from invasion by us troops is an unknown, the air victory in 1940 turned the nazi eye elsewhere. without the austalians, new zealanders and british in burma the japanese would have gone further.
every country that contributed, however small, was vital - and should be equally praised. without the tiny cogs the biggest machines break down. as we will never know history without the us help, and all the others, then supposition as to what may have been is irrellevant. we succeeded, all of us, and we should give thanks for all those who fought and served, regardless of how big their army, navy or air force.