Call it a counterexample to an absurd position.
No. I think people bring it up just because it’s an interesting sidebar to the question.
An important aspect of the US approach to the war was to, as far as possible, replace “spending lives” with “spending money and resources.” This is not necessarily to imply other countries were callous with the lives of their citizens; the US had the resources to adopt such an approach. It was a highly unusual situation, historically, economically, and militarily.
absolutely. In terms of putting together a coalition and holding on until the coalition was assembled, England. In terms of producing supplies, the US and Canada. In terms of applying technology in the most cost effective way, England.
If not for Churchill and some very smart people we would have been severely trounced by a vastly superior German war machine. the collaborative effort behind code breaking was a coalition thing of beauty. If not for Henry Ford’s legacy we could not build 1 b-24 an hour. The UK gave us the time to build a war machine that no amount of superior technology could survive. Russia used those supplies and a lot of sacrifice to grind up German assets on a second front.
I’m amazed that it took so long to defeat Germany and wonder how badly it would have gone if Hitler wasn’t a complete logistical moron. He mismanaged about every single asset he had.