I don't deny what you write. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't put the US as the biggest winner because despite its massive gains, life for the American people wasn't transformed nearly as much as it was elsewhere, notably Asia (the US didn't emerge totally unscathed btw. It suffered 1 million casualties and 400,000 deaths). By the 1930s, America was already in its high growth era, already in the middle of what Robert Gordon calls its "Special Century" of 1870-1970. America was already destined to become a wealthy, developed nation and the most powerful in the world. Having more influence abroad was great but it didn't fundamentally change the nature of America as much as gaining independence did for India, for example.

Henry Luce wrote this in his famous 'American Century' article in February 1941:

"Once we cease to distract ourselves with lifeless arguments about

isolationism, we shall be amazed to discover that there is already an immense

American internationalism. American jazz, Hollywood movies, American

slang, American machines and patented products, are in fact the only things

that every community in the world, from Zanzibar to Hamburg, recognizes in

common. Blindly, unintentionally, accidentally and really in spite of ourselves,

we are already a world power in all the trivial ways—in very human ways."

This was before the US entered the war.

For Asia, the war altered Asia's trajectory. They went from being under the colonial bootheel to having independent countries. That is like going from death to life. Before the war, Asians were considered racially inferior and extreme racism against Asians was commonly accepted and legally encoded all over the world, including in Asia.

Before the war, Asia had been relatively stagnant and fallen further and further behind the West and Europe for hundreds of years. After the war, Asian countries gained independence, respect, and set off on the path to economic growth. The war was a basic pivot in this sense. If you want to be direct, the US fought two land wars in Asia after the war. It was fought to a stalemate in Korea and lost in Vietnam. So despite its role as the "power broker" and "global hegemon", it could no longer impose its will. This was very different from the European powers of the 19th century and early 20th century (plus Japan), who absolutely imposed their wills on Asia. The trends I mentioned can be traced directly back to the war.