Well thats unfair. You really think the Britans and the French were on the cusp of pushing back the german invaders by themselves?? I don't think so.
Russia didn't count then? If Russia didn't put up such a fight in the east, Hitler wouldn't have been fighting a 2 front war. Too much credit is given to the western Allies, and not enough to the eastern front. Russia was by far the one who suffered the most casualties, the one that has contributed the most, the one who spent the most. Leningrad, as well as Stalingrad, became obsessions of Hitler because Hitler couldn't destroy them. Russia preoccupied the Germans, which then led the west to victory and glory, leaving themselves out of the picture for some reason...
But let's refer to that list once more. And I'll admit that calling that list ethnocentric was very impolite of me, but I did not misspoke. That list is still ethnocentric, in the context that it assumes that those wars are wars that the US wants to be involved in. Referring back to my statement, I said, the US is known for staying out of wars because that's how they make a lot of profit.
Lets pick one of these wars of the list to show you my point. How about the most important one to our American heritage? The Revolutionary War. First you would need to know the relationship between the North versus the South. The South didn't want to become independant in the first place, and they were forced to sign the Declaration of Independance (you can tell from the penmanship of the signatures). Britain was the one buying all of their cotton, why would they want to break away from them? It wouldn't make sense to break of ties with Britain.
On the other hand the North needed to break off ties with Britain because of all the taxes on thier products. This distinction is evident because of the different market systems between the North and the South. What actually happened was British troops were sent to both South and North states, but the ones in the South were not fighting American troops, they were fighting Native Americans. They were actually protecting the Southern states.
In the North, we had the French helping us out. By about 1779, French troops have nearly double the size of the US troops in North America. Silly as you might think it sound, but if it wasn't for the French (and it's hatred for the Brits) the US couldn't have won this war. And now, let me go back to my statement, if the French had more troops than the US, that means the US contributed less. On the same lines of my statement that the US is hardly a major contributor to WW2, this is what context I'm stating it in. And how did it make money of this? Well, I'll defer everyone to the Declaration of Independance, which is essentially just a list of taxes the US refuses to pay (plus a fancy introduction in the front).
In WW2, the US have not contributed as nearly as much money as Britain or Russia have. Not nearly the number of soldiers compared to Russia, and not nearly as much time as either of those two. In the end, it was Russia who did the most fighting, but consequently also who suffered the most, both socially and economically. If you asked me who won the war, I'd say it was actually Russia's defiance against Hitler, not soley responsible for the entire victory of course. It was the 2 fronts that defeated Hitler after all. But compared to what the US offered, Russia was the one who put thier neck on the line.
But I'll admit to this much, after WW2, the US has changed it's foreign policy as it has become one of the most powerfullest nations in the world. So after WW2, it has become intricately involved in wars, which is half that list basically. But beyond WW2 and earlier, expanding territorially was not a problem for US until they reached the pacific and when Mexico wouldn't let them get more than Texas.
And I'll also admit I may have crossed the line when I said the US was hardly involved in WW2, which they were. But not in comparison with the other major players in that war. My bad!
