General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNational narcissism rears its head in study of WWII
World War II was, by any measure, a massive undertaking that involved huge loss and suffering. The countries involved -- Allied and Axis -- committed substantial resources and sacrificed an astounding number of human lives.
No matter how much a particular country contributed however, the sum total of all losses cannot equal more than 100%. Nonetheless, in a survey of people from countries on both sides of the war, researchers from Washington University in St. Louis show that across the board, people ascribe an inflated weight to their country's contribution to the war effort.
The results were published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
...
Among just three Allied countries, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S., participants claimed their countries contributed 180%. Russians claimed 75%, the UK respondents claimed 51%, and those from the U.S. 54%. Across all eight Allied countries, the total effort amounted to about 300%.
https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-08/wuis-nnr081519.php
--------------------
I know here in Canada, while we punched above our weight during the war, it often sounds like we were the only reason the war was won.
Wounded Bear
(58,436 posts)The thing is, the western allies didn't contribute all that much to the final demise of Germany when they invaded Normandy.
What they really did was prevent the Soviets from driving all the way to the Rhine, and possibly into France.
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)Their losses were immense, and they essentially bled Hitler dry in Europe.
Historian Max Hastings has an interesting thesis on this: that Stalin's brutality to his own people made it possible. Simply put, the Russian people endured so much suffering because they feared their own leadership as much as if not more than they feared the enemy.
Disaffected
(4,503 posts)roughly 2/3 of the German army and airforce were deployed, and consumed, on the Eastern front.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)bdjhawk
(420 posts)Seems like the general feeling here is that that the war would not have been won without the US.
Disaffected
(4,503 posts)especially considering the US did most of the heavy lifting in the Pacific.
Probably true for Russia as well - the Nazis came within a hair's breadth of defeating Russia (they were finally stopped in the suburbs of Moscow) and it is hard to imagine a subsequent successful D-day with most of the Wehrmacht deployed there.
Similar sort of thing I would guess if Great Britain had fallen.
OTOH, the A-bomb might have settled the matter no matter what the previous victories.
DavidDvorkin
(19,404 posts)On the sea, not on the land.
Disaffected
(4,503 posts)that's why I said "Pacific" (ocean).
lunatica
(53,410 posts)But its not surprising since most countries learn of their part mostly. I dont think thats narcissistic though. Its more like countries being subjective which makes sense.