Was the United States considered a superpower in WW2?
112688
I believe they were considered a superpower (at least by the end of the war).  Admiral Yamamoto referred to waking "a sleeping giant," after Pearl Harbor.  Winston Churchill fully relied on the industrial might and potential of the Yankee war effort.  Especially after Nagasaki and Hiroshima, i'll bet the eyes of the world regarding the US as a superpower.
13817
Great Britain was powerful because of their navy. It enforced British imperialism throughout the world, and hence made Britain a superpower. Also, Britian had advanced textiles and technologies. Their air forces and military were very powerful, despite their population's size and geographical limits.\n\nGreat Britain lost almost all its colonies (and a hell of a lot of men) in and in the aftermath of WWII, and WWII also led to the military buildup of the United States Armed Forces, which meant the US Navy was now more powerful, thanks to American industry. Russia, too, recovered from its war slump and (using Lend-Lease weapons and vehicles) built a massive military and economy that allowed it to rival the US.\n\nPlus, nuclear weapons. We and the USSR had them, Britain didn't (not for a while) and that made us superpowers and them our allies. You will find military power often defines "superpower". That and economic power. The UK lacks the geographical resources and population to have a robust economy, and it is not a center of great technological achievement, like Japan. It's military is potent but kept small by a comparatively low budget due to limited resources and the population.
849243
Agree or disagree with the American contributions in the first and second world wars, one thing is certain. The Us is not capable of engaging in a conflict to support its own interest and sustaining the resolve required to win. We have surrendered to liberal heresy and are doomed to suffer the fate of a weak and conviction-less nation.
675428
To answer your questions in order:\n\nYes, the Soviet Union (which included Russia) was an ally of the US and the British.  The USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, also called the Soviet Union.  Russia was a part of the USSR, but wasn't called Russia then), led by Stalin, signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler (leader of Germany).  This was in force until Hitler broke it and invaded the Soviet Union.  Stalin was taken unawares and unprepared, so Hitler did well at first.  Stalin therefore allied with the British and the US to fight the Germans.  The "cold war" didn't start until after WWII During the jostling for control over the states freed from the Nazis. \n\n*****\n\nThe USSR and the Japanese didn't work together.  The war in Europe against Germany) ended sooner than that in Japan (May 8, 1945 for Germany’s surrender and August 15, 1945 for Japan’s) and the USSR was free to declare war on Japan, which it did.  This was one of the reasons that the US dropped nuclear bombs on Japan.  It wanted to end the war before the Soviet Union forces entered the fighting, who would then stay and have control in that country and region.  \n\nAfter WWII Germany was divided into two halves, appropriately called West and East Germany.  The US, the United Kingdom (the British) and France controlled the West.  The Soviet Union controlled the East.  Germany was two different countries.  The US, UK and France set up a democracy in the West and then left (although the US left troops to guard against an attack from the Soviet Union, and many are still stationed there.  Now the bases are used as staging grounds for operations in the Afghanistan and Iraq).  The country they created was called the Federal Republic of Germany.\n\nThe Soviet Union established a country in the Eastern half, called the German Democratic Republic. This was not democratic though – it was communist.  The Soviet Union had many troops stationed there as well, and had a lot of influence in the Eastern half.  Vladimir Putin, the current President of the Russian Federation, worked in East Germany as a spy when he was part of the KGB (this isn’t a secret – he admits it freely and uses his excellent German in speeches).\n\n*****\nGermany played a very strong role in the War.  They were allied with Japan, but because they had some common enemies in their efforts to expand their territories.  In Europe, the war started when Germany annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia, claiming to be uniting the Germans who lived there (Austrians speak German and there were a lot of Germans in Czechoslovakia.  The moved there in the centuries that it belonged to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Austrian Empire and the Holy Roman Empire, which were all names used at different times to describe the same Empire ruled from the Austrian city of Vienna). At this point there was a lot of nervousness in Europe, as Hitler was using rhetoric such as “Germans need more land to live, which is their birthright.” But the British made a deal with Hitler that they would let him keep those countries if he didn’t go any further.  Hitler agreed, but he invaded Poland anyway, and kept going from there. He took France, Bombed England and wanted to invade, and moved through Eastern Europe.  He also invaded the USSR, as mentioned above.\n\nThe US at this point wasn’t involved.  Hitler made an alliance with the Japanese, who were engaged in their own war of expansion, because both were fighting the British and French (the British had a lot of Colonial holdings in the Pacific, and the French had some, too).  \n\nThe US became involved when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.  The Japanese wanted the US to withdraw from the pacific, but instead the US declared war on the Japanese.  The Japanese and the Germans were allied, so Germany declared war on the US, which then also entered the European war.  It was already helping the UK and the USSR with equipment and logistical support,
373082
Yes, because Germany used submarine warfare against our friends, Great Britain. They also used the Zimmerman Note to make Mexico against us.
141591
The extent to which we satisfied our objectives was less than satisfactory.  We did put a halt to German submarine aggression in the North Atlantic, but Wilson's goals of forming a working League of Nations and having the US as a charter member were only partially realized.  The Leauge was formed, but the US Congress failed to adopt the Leaue's charter.  On the bright side, the US exited the war with relatively few casualties and its economic and physical infrastructures intact.  We had established ourselves as a super power.
653711
If you are talking the first years of the 20th century, Theodore Roosevelt dramatically expanded the role of US power on a global basis. He sent out the "Great White Fleet" as an example of American military power.\nBefore 1900, the United States had kept pretty much within this hemisphere; we protected our economic interests in Latin America, but let Europe run most of the rest of the world.\nThe US began to expand its global reach starting in 1900. It didn't reach full superpower status until after World War II, but TR laid the groundwork for it to happen.
648619
There is so much to say on this so I will keep my personal views relatively ( ! ) short; \nSince WW2, most western european nations have experienced the demise of empire and their previously almost unchallenged military and economic dominance. \nThey have learned from this humility that consultation and diplomacy is the best way forward when dealing with 'problem nations' . \nThis compared to the current (but I hope not permanent) American model of a kind of patriarchal dictatorship, negotiating from a position of economic and military dominance, with a claim of benevolance that belies its self interest. \nDictation of terms is a luxury that European nations no longer have. It promotes jealousy and resentment, in the same way that former colonies of European nations rebelled against their former masters, there is a growing movement of 'non aligned' nations that would like to change the world order once more.\nAmerica needs to learn from the modern and current European political style. It needs to be more pro-active in foreign policy, outward looking and sophisticated in its diplomacy if it wants to keep its position as a superpower.
1141060
It's obvious that you are not a "historian" by any stretch of the imagination.  To be truthful with you, WW II started on 11/11/1918.  The treaty of Versailles was not inforced by the "League of Nations" as it should have been.  The "Great Depression" which began in 1929 devastated the world's economy.  With this having been said, Hitler was a very charasmetic person who played on the German people's fears and their anger.  \n\nGermany began by annexing Austria as well as other Germanic counties that were broken up due to the Treaty of Versailles.  His emphasis of German "nationalism" united the former empire, thus creating the "Third Reich".  Poland was annexed (by invasion) in September of 1939 and this was the "last straw" for England.  France was invaded  in 1940 and quickly fell.  \n\nThere was no one left to stand against Germany (Hitler) but England.  Hitler then began his "blitzkreig" against England. \n\nThe U.S. entered WW II on December 7, 1941 due to the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the destruction of our Pacific fleet.  \n\nI could go on and on but, I don't think that this forum could handle much more information.  May I suggest that you read some books on WW I as well as WW II and you will see for yourself the political events that lead up to the beginning of WW II.  And of course you will find out that most of Hitler's conquests were to gather the raw materials that would have enabled him to conquor the entire world.  \n\n"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it".  This is why we (U.S.) must oppose tyrinical governments such as Iraq and the terrorism that he (and others like him) would like to inflict upon The United States of America.  Read, read and read some more.
203345
In the sense of superpowers of the cold war period, the United States is the only Superpower left.\n\nOf those countries with nuclear weapons few have the delivery capability to get something to our shores and fewer yet could actually hurt our country.  The fact is, the United States has the capability to eliminate all of those countries.  Most importantly the United States has demonstrated restraint in the use of its power.  Lastly, other than the lunatic fringe (such as the terrorists) it is not in the interest of any other country to attack the United States.
154338
YES.US does think tat its d Godfather of the world.The so called "Super power" does not hav empathy towards the people of other counntries such as Iraq & pakistan & so on.\n\nThey are only concerned about themselves.
875259
America's role in WWI was not as large as it was in WWII (although in both wars the U.S. entered the war late - for more information I would compare the information between the two wars check here for a start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states_of_america#World_War_I_and_II\n\nGood Luck!!!
834416
from 1939-1945 but the u.s. wasnt involved until 1941
372806
Well, in terms of war or battles?\n\nAs far as war goes, the USA never lost a war.  In terms of battles, Germany, Japan, England, China, and the Confederacy.  The closest to loosing a war was 1812, against England.  We also lost a few naval engagements against the Barbary Pirate States, but won all land engagements.\n\nAs far as the guy above me, NATO and western Europe did not invade the soviets at the end of WW2.  The soviets would not return former independent nations to their own autonomy, claiming it created a buffer zone to prevent western invasion.  This was called the Warsaw Pact.  NATO was created in response, on a theory of containment.\n\nWe did land troops in Russia, after the revolution against the monarchy.  There were two governments, a Democratic and a socialist one.  Our troops never engaged, only advised.  Obviously, the socialists won.  This was at the turn of the 20th.\n\nIn Vietnam, the USA won every single battle with the NVA.  Public support eroded at home, so we pulled out.  It is said about Vietnam...."from the jaws of victory we pulled defeat."
71977
"American Exceptionalism" is at worse a facade and at best a very poor interpretation of our "purpose" as a nation. The founding fathers that argued for the constitution argued that yes the US needed to be a superpower to have domestic and foreign security, but an economic superpower not a military superpower. The United States does differ "qualitatively from other developed nations, because of its unique origins, national credo, historical evolution etc, but our founding fathers aruged that we should not be a force to interfere with other nations affairs. The intent of the Union was . . . is to preserve all of our values within our boundries not spread it across the world. One could argue that Iran or North Korea might not have technology that potentially threatens us if we had not invented such technology in the first place. The United States origianlly had no responsibility to anyone but itself. However, in a age where warfare is mobile and long reaching, and that capitalism has developed into the battled prize among everyone the US needs to (all though one could debate it) a strong foriegn force to defend its economy which equates to defending our unique rights of self determination through liberty, freedom etc, so in the end being the world's policemen which is needed by our system is contradictive to the purpose of the US originally.
659278
After world war 2 (1945) to 1990 the USSR and USA governments     d each other and raced to be the best superpower. It wasn't a war as such. They gave each other the cold shoulder, so to speak. Hence the term. \n\nSome people claim they had proxy wars. They would have police actions in a third country supposedly to support the third country - but some people would argue this was their way of having a war with each other without admitting to having a war with each other. It was done this way (the argument goes) because the USSR and USA could never really have a war since they would blow us all to kingdom come.
295537
I believe the best weapon of WW2 was a well-trained American infantryman. It doesn't matter how sophisticated the weapon, it is useless unless in the hands of a well-trained individual. America's importance on proper training won the war, not just the weaponry.