[jimbob]

Top Canadian Contribution to WW2 -
Monetary, Millions of US dollars = 20,104
Max Military Size at Peak = 780,000
Naval Vessels #'s = 32
Total Tonnage = 23,811

Top US Contribution to WW2 -
Monetary, Millions of US dollars = 288,000
Max Military Size at Peak = 12,364,000
Naval Vessels #'s = 19,034
Total Tonnage = 5,457,000

Okay, this is true (well, as far as I believe you, which I have no reason not to ), and well said. Even if one considers contributions of each nation on a per capita basis (which I think we should do, if only to be fair to the arguement, especially as the US had nearly 12 x more population with whom to contribute), the USA definitely put up a larger contribution. Now your arguement, as far as I've interpreted it (which may be erronious on my part) is:

had the US remained a member of the Commonwealth (ie subordinate to the Imperial master, Britian) it would not have been as helpful in the battle against Germany

I'm not yet convinced of two things:

1) that the USA would not/could not have attained a high population, and subsequently high industrial base, if it had remained a British Colony. Granted, Canada did not become a world power, but it had a different immigration policy (and damn cold weather to boot ) that hindered the degree of immigration as compared to the United States. I do not know my American history well enough to comment on the royal proclaimations visa vie the expansion of the colonies beyond the original borders, but I think it is interesting to note that the Canadian colony(s) were allowed to expand beyond their original boundaries at a later date (which yes, one could argue, was allowed by the Crown as an attempt to check American expansion into the west. Though I may be mistaken, I don't think the Crown was still calling the shots by this time, as Canada had developed a very independent legislative lower-house fairly early in it's history. This would argue that membership in the Commonwealth would not have been a long term hindrance to the American colonies expansion). So, while Texas may have managed to remain independent of the United States of America, I don't easily accept that renunciation of the British colonial system would have cost the USA the west. It could be noted at this time that, had the USA not rebelled against the British yoke, slavery would have been banished at an earlier date. This may have reduced the construction of the American industrial giant, but that too is another arguement...

2) that the USA would have contributed less had it jumped in earlier. Many have commented that the USA best contributed to the war by staying uninvolved in the early years, building up it's military, and then jumping in for a decisive ending action. However, had the US remained a British colony, and then evolved an independance as some other countries had (ie Canada, Australia) it would have joined in the battle from the very beginning. This may well have had a more profound effect, as this would have allowed a more concerted effort from many nations, rather than allowing for the complete exhaustion of individual countries before others joined in. Even had the US not remained a non-beligerant state, and supplied the UK with it's 1000 or so dry-docked destroyers, the battle of Britian could have turned out quite differently. This earlier involvement may well have cost the USA more, but it would have left the other combatants (ie the UK) in better shape post-WWII. Had Britian not been so damaged by it's drawn-out, nearly solo battle with the German forces, it would have been far more effective in the subsequent cold war against the USSR.

Hey, nothings perfect in historical recreationism, but I think that the USA could still have played an important role in the outcome of WWI and WWII, regardless of the revolution several hundred years prior to these conflicts.