How much did the US contribute to winning World War 2?

Answer 1

Hundreds of billions of dollars. The US citizens bought something like 183 billions of dollars worth of war bonds. The atomic bombs cost over 2 billion dollars. Have heard a figure of 2 million billion dollars but it is doubtful that figure could be correct because life was lower costing then.

Answer 2

I assume you're asking how much the US contributed to the Allied victory in WWII. In a short simple statement, you could say that the US aid to Great Britain was critical for that country's survival. Also that the US defeated the Japanese empire more or less by herself, with little assistance from any other Allied country. Also that the US provided the bulk of men and equipment in the campaigns of Europe against the Germans. Without a Western front or fear of invasion, Germany would have stalemated the Russians, who then undoubtedly would have negotiated an armistice with Hitler. In sum, none of the Axis powers would have been defeated without the assistance of the US.

I think it would've been quite possible to win the war even without the U.S.'s assistance. Russia received practically no help whatsoever from the US and still it was able to free most of the Western Europe and get to Berlin by 1943. The second front was open in May 1943. Yes, it helped, but the Soviet Union could've managed without it. It would've taken more time though. The British in January of 1943 Britain's navy had 2 months supply of oil left. This means that if Hitler had truly ordered the mass production of U-boats, Britain already running low on food would be unable to move. Hitler and his forces could deeply consider waiting till '42 or the start of '43 to attack Russia. The Me-262 turbojet fighter was ready to be manufactured in Germany as of mid 1942. Instead of pretty good BF-109's, the elite Me-262's would support the mighty German army with its assault on Russia. Not only would the large army that existed in 1941 attack Russia, there would be fresh troops and many more aircraft and tanks. Higher numbers of Tiger and Panther tanks would be ready for the invasion. Also if all went according to plan Rommel could have been a commander for the Russian campaign. Bock, Runstedt, Rommel, Leeb, Manstein and Paulus.

May I add that I meant Hitler should have demanded the mass production of U-boats in 1940.

The US entry was a decisive factor. At the beginning of the war, US produced 30% of the worlds industrial production. By the end, the US produced 50%. The US raised 100 divisions of men and fed (supplied, provided for) 1,000-2,000 more divisions. (assuming each division is 14,000 men). We supplied tanks, food, clothing, oil, etc. to Britain, the Mediterranean, Russia, China, Burma, you name it. Here is a few facts for the record. 1. The British Air force destroyed the bulk of the Luftwaffe single handed leading to allied air superiority that the Germans never regained. Imagine all those Stuka's, HE-111'S, and ME-109'S that were either destroyed during the Battle of Britain or tied up defending Germany from Allied Bombing being transferred to the Russian Front. 2. Without the Western allies Hitler would have been able to transfer the bulk of his mechanized and better units to the eastern front instead of tying them down in France. awaiting the allied invasion. 3. American trucks and Construction equipment (leased to Russia) helped move those tank factories deep into Russia during 1941-1942 before the Germans could capture them. American Tanks (Shermans and Grants),half tracks, Artillery, Ammunition, and spare parts leased to the Russians helped defend those factories until the Russians could get their factories up and running. We shipped Shermans to Russia while our forces were still using Grants in Africa. 4. Stalin was carrying on secret peace negotiations with Germany (through Switzerland) from 1943 thru 1944. He believed that with the possible Allied Defeat on D-Day,1944 that Hitler would be able to transfer the bulk of his Western forces to Eastern Europe, (because the Western Powers would not be able to invade Europe for at least 2-years).

If Stalin was so confident that he could defeat the Germans by himself why was he so pushy about opening a 2nd front. Large German Forces were tied down in France and there was really no change in forces facing him in eastern Europe. I believe he wanted to see if the allies were going to be successful on D-Day and if not conclude his peace talks and save face if the Western Allies failed. All the Allies played a critical role assisting each other.

1. England destroyed the Luftwaffe gaining Allied Air Superiority as well as jointly defeating the Germans and Italians in N. Africa/ Europe With the USA.

2. Russia came back from 1941 and opened up a front and advanced nonstop to Berlin.

3. America provided War Materials, Ships, Aircraft, and etc...to both England and Russia immediately upon entering the war. And immediately began building and preparing the US Military for the invasion of Africa/Fortress Europe. I think that the Allies would not have won the WWII if US had not entered because of the bulk of our troops and resources, however contributing these supplies did not aid US' own problem in the depression.

"What if" and "could have" history is guesswork - and no more than a party game: it's certainly not history.

It seems to me that there's a tendency to underrate the Soviet contribution to the Allied victory in Europe. About 75% of the German soldiers killed in action fell on the Eastern Front.

Because of the weather conditions. Once the lakes and rivers turned to ice the Soviets were able to start transporting supplies. Otherwise the German "war machine" would have dominated the Soviets, plus Stalin, killed half his general because he felt that they were not loyal.

The entering of the US undoubtedly tipped the balance in the Allies' favor. The help they brought to the UK helped the British to resist against German invasion. Then their direct participation in the war was determinant.

The real problem for the US was to be on two fronts at the same time (Japanese in the Pacific and Germans in Europe). The fact that the European front was far away obliged the US to adapt and to strengthen its naval and air forces and logistics. The success of the US in this war is due to the capacity of the Americans to adapt their industry and themselves.

This is a popular post with many great answers, but I'll contribute what I see as my two cents. The American industrial machine was like nothing ever seen before. Incredible amounts of aircraft, weapons, and armored vehicles were turned out daily. Also, the US literally contributed billions of dollars to Britain and the USSR to help with their own industrial development. Germany, being a very small country compared to the US, had very limited resources within her own borders. The Germans had mounted an extremely successful industrial machine, but US and British bombing severely crippled her attempts to keep production high. Without the destruction of her industrial capacity I feel the war would have had a much more frightening outcome. The Russian Army, which was extremely tough, brave, and relentless was also nearing exhaustion. Stalin himself was pleading for a second front in France as soon as possible. After landing in France and fighting through the Normandy hedgerows, American troops advanced at a rate of something like 20 miles a day! What I see as the decisive factor in the defeat of Nazi Germany is the US's seemingly indefinite supply of men, machines, and deadly air raids. Also, the heroism of the Red Army must never be overlooked. It was a great collaborative effort, and if any of the Allied powers contributions were to be removed, Nazi Germany could very well have succeeded.

The United States, USSR, and UK all play very distinctly different roles in WW2. The fact is, that without any one of these players, it is unlikely that the Allies win. There is no victory without each of those three countries.

Britain's Role

The UK's main role was twofold: firstly, they provided a constant thorn and distraction for both Germany and Japan. That is, the British Empire tied down an enormous amount of military resources of the Axis, both in occupying what portions they'd conquered, and in fighting the remaining British forces across the globe. They would act as a spoiler and distraction to both Japan and Germany, enticing those countries to squander resources that would have been better (and more successfully) put to use elsewhere.

Secondly, the British Empire occupied key geographic locations throughout the globe. Without access to those areas and Commonwealth countries to use as staging grounds, the United States would have been at an enormous logistical disadvantage, one that is almost impossible to imagine that the US would have been able to overcome (i.e. imagine trying to invade France, or North Africa, by staging out of, what, Bermuda?)

Finally, Britain acted as sort of a "proxy" for the US - essentially, allowing the US to fight without actually being involved. This was critical, for the US in 1939 was NOT useful as a combatant; it took over two full years of political and economic redesign and retooling to reach a point where the US was a real military threat.

As far as dependencies, Britain absolutely depended upon the US to keep it alive, particularly in the dark days of 1940. The massive flow of supplies and money from the US (via Lend-Lease and other, more subtle incarnations) were what keep Britain on its feet, able to play the spoiler. Later on, the British Empire (with new American equipment) was able to contribute actual fighting forces about equal to that of the US, particularly in Europe.

USSR's role

The role of the USSR was primarily a ex-sanguinary one: Russia was where all the good German soldiers went to die. With its almost unlimited manpower, and the political will to use it with abandon, the USSR did most of the actual Allied fighting (and dying) in WW2. The amount of military forces deployed by the Germans against the Red Army was well over 3 times the size that it employed against the Western Allies.

Russia's role was that of the sponge - it was to soak up the majority of German fighting effort, grinding it up a bit at a time. The ideological fixation of Hitler with Communism also enabled Russia to entice (often, only by accident) Hitler into massive strategic blunders, ones which he would not have made against an opponent whom he had less of a hatred (and contempt) for.

The USSR was dependent on the US in a way very similar to Britain - it depended heavily on US monetary aid in order to finance its war effort. It also received enormous amounts of ordinary supplies (food, specialty items, trucks, ammunition) and modest amounts of military gear from the US. The reality was that Soviet industry, even after reorganization, was simply not anywhere near up to the task of supplying everything that the massive Red Army needed to function. Good historical estimates are that the USSR's economy and military production actually produced less than half of what the country needed to eat, fight, and live for the entire war. The rest was supplied by Britain and (primarily) the US.

US's Role

The primary role of the US was threefold: Banker, Manufacturer, and Navy.

As noted previously, the US was by far the largest creditor nation in the world, and was able to bankroll both the British and Russian war machines. Without the essentially unlimited credit the US supplied both countries, they would almost certainly been bankrupt (and unable to pay for anything, let alone a war) by 1941 (in Britain) or 1942 (in Russia). The US supplied the cash to keep them in the fight.

The second role is what most people think of when asked this question. The relative volume of material goods produced by the US is almost unimaginable. For comparison, the US produced over 5 times the German output, 15 times the Japanese output, 5 times the Russian output, and 4 times the output of the entire British Commonwealth. Historically, the US possessed both the knowledge and culture able to quickly adapt to producing vast quantities of material, cheaply and quickly. This massive volume of equipment was used to provide the war materials allowing both Britain and Russia to fight effectively. In addition, when the US itself became directly involved, this huge material advantage enabled it to relatively quickly (though not painlessly) swamp the Axis. Indeed, if you look at history, the primary problems that the US faces in both Europe and the Pacific are not military, but logistical. That is, the problem is not in beating the opponent, but rather getting all the forces from the US to the combat zone.

Finally, the US is the primary (in fact, really the only) combatant on the Allied side in the Pacific, and provided the equipment for most of the Allied forces fighting the crucial Battle of the Atlantic. Australia and Britain contribute some forces, which, particularly in the early stages, are critical, but, from 1942 onwards, the Pacific war is almost exclusively a US-Japan fight, and the British Navy is never able to return to pre-war strength. Some of this is by design - the British Empire focuses on defeating Germany, with US help (and equipment), while the US is left to fight Japan. In addition, for political (and some semi-valid military) reasons, Russia is unwilling to aid in the fight against Japan. So, the US shoulders 90% of the burden of fighting WW2 in the Pacific.

As far as the US's dependencies go, it needed the British Empire (the British Isles in particular) as a staging ground for any fight with Germany, and as a political partner able to inspire the rather insipid US public opinion as to the necessity of war. The poor fact is that the US would unlikely have been drawn into WW2 with a British defeat in 1940. The level of British intellectual contribution is also often underestimated (that is, the amount of technological breakthroughs and inventions made by the British are at least as much as those made by the Americans). Similarly, once the US is involved in the war, Russia provides the US with the means to actually "fight", at least for most of 1942 and early 1943, when the only real combat the US sees is in naval contests. Being able to support the Russians means that the US can put its own house in order before committing troops to combat. In a very real sense, the US pays for Russians to fight (and die) to buy itself the time to properly prepare.

The long-and-short of this is that the amount that the US contributed is "a lot", but in different ways and with different purposes than other members of the Allies. In a very real way, the Allied victory in WW2 is a true Team Effort.

Answer 3

The loan of weapons 'Lend Lease' and the extra man power all helped but it was just 2 years too late really. Many Americans will say that the loan of weapons stopped an invasion of Britain but thats just not true and a very ignorant statement to make. Lend Lease did not take place untill March 1941, Britain had already fought off an invasion in the Battle of Britain which ended on October 1940 almost 6 months before Lend Lease even started. The Battle of Britain was to pave way for a planned invasion of Britain (Operation Sealion) to stand any chance of pulling Operation Sealion off Hitler needed air and sea superiority but he lost the Battle of Britain to Britain. Hitler had 4000 planes,many were destroyed invading Poland and France then Britain destroyed over 1,700 in the Battle of Britain. After the Battle of Britain Britain was safe from any invasion. Hitlers Military advisors warned Hitler that an invasion of Britain was not possible and a suicide mission so Operation Sealion was canceled and they moved on to Russia with planes they borrowed from Italy. Then 6 months later Lend Lease started and a 1/4 of Britains weapons were on loan,but in return Britain gave US troops training for D-day.

D-day was roughly 83,000 American troops 67,000 British 23,000 Canadian then Polish,French,Australian,New Zealand and many other countries were there too. Over half the ships and planes on D-day were French and British. D-day was planned and led by 5 British Generals and 1 American General.

America took care of the Japanese with allied help but Japan wasnt really much of a problem for Europe. America indeed to play a significant role in WW2 but other countries played much bigger roles. For instance Britain was bombing Germany just as bad as Germany bombed Britain a full year and a half before America even entered the War, 75% of Berlin was bombed which played a huge role in making it possible for Russia to invade Berlin. It was Polish intelligence Britain used to crack the Enigma Code, the Enigma code shaved 2yrs off the war saved millions of lives and made the war much easier from then on as it gave away all of Hitlers plans and posts etc. Most of Hitlers 4000 planes were destroyed by European forces before American even entered, same thing goes for Hitlers Navy and Troops. Hitler had 5 to 6 million troops,many of these were killed invading Europe (Poland,France,Russia, Battle of Britain etc)

End of the Day WW2 was a 'WORLD' effort and many countries did their bit and played significant roles

Answer 4

Before their entry into the War, the US provided much-needed supplies for their allies. Once it entered, the US aided in the liberation of North Africa, and was absolutely essential in the invasion of Sicily and Italy. American Troops also liberated France, Belgium, and the Netherlands with help from the British and Commonwealth forces. Also, they invaded Germany from Belgium and pushed deep into the Reich. While this was all occurring, the US was single-handedly battling the Japanese in the pacific, which eventually lead to the defeat of Japan. Those were the primary contributions of the US to World War II.

Answer 5

300,000,000
a lot

Usa spent around 350 billion including after war rebuilding

Answer 6

No exact amount was ever known -- kind of like how many people really died in WW2 is only a guess. I have read of estimates of around 1 trillion dollar for World War II.

Answer 7

It is estimated that the US spent $341 billion dollars during WW2. This total includes the $50 million spent on lend-lease supplies.