# Did the US save Europe in WW2?



## syscom3 (May 7, 2007)

Seriously, if the US did stay on the sidelines for the war in Europe, could the UK have enough military capacity to prevail over the Nazi's?

I say its a resounding NO!!!

While the UK did have the power to not be invaded by the Germans, it also flat out didnt have the power to invade France or Italy.

Only the US had the resources necessary to enable the allies to beat the Germans. In fact, without the US getting involved in the European war, the Germans would have fought the Russians to a draw, or maybe even with some luck, beat them.

The facts are clear, the US saved Europe from Russian or German domination


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 7, 2007)

I disagree with you completely. 

The US had a major role and the allies could not have done without the US but the US could seriously not have done it without the rest of the Allies and namely England and Russia.

Now having said that, first I fixed your poll to make it correct so that it does not only reflect your personal agenda here...

Also this thread will stay open only as long as everyone can stay civilized in it.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 7, 2007)

One question here. Didn't Japan plan a attack on the US before the war? I might be completely off the track here.... If I am please do correct me.


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2007)

I see where this thread is going; it'll be the vast majority of Americans claiming that the U.S saved Europe - while everyone else says otherwise. 

I assume that, in this scenario, the British Empire is still brought under threat by Japan in the CBI theatre - but they do not attack the U.S - highly unlikely. 

In Europe, without U.S intervention, Britain had held Germany at the Channel and had pushed Italy out of Eygpt. The Soviet Union had pushed Germany away from Moscow; and held them at a stalemate for the time being. Germany had no way of reaching across the Channel, and the airwar was moving in British favour from 1941 onwards - before U.S entry into it. 

Britain would have to adapt quicker, but the facts all remain that Germany had no chance of taking Britain. The RAF was raiding Axis Europe by day and night before the famed "Mighty 8th" came on the scene. It wasn't all Britain; as we had our entire Empire to fall back on - which kept up supplies of man and machine all through the war. 

The war would have been harder won, but it's obvious that Germany would have not had total victory. Obvious to anyone with a brain.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 7, 2007)

I'll do my part to keep this thread nice and tidy by buying everybody a large BEER.....


----------



## syscom3 (May 7, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I disagree with you completely.
> 
> The US had a major role and the allies could not have done without the US but the US could seriously not have done it without the rest of the Allies and namely England and Russia.
> 
> ...



Without the US, Europe would have remained under German control. And if it was the Russians who ultimatly beat the Germans, then it was going to be
T-34 tanks on the Channel, and not the BA in Berlin.

The US entry into the war in Europe guarenteed that the allies would win. Therefore America gets credit for saving the butt's of the European people.


----------



## syscom3 (May 7, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> One question here. Didn't Japan plan a attack on the US before the war? I might be completely off the track here.... If I am please do correct me.



The events of the Pacific are inapplicable here.


----------



## syscom3 (May 7, 2007)

plan_D said:


> I assume that, in this scenario, the British Empire is still brought under threat by Japan in the CBI theatre - but they do not attack the U.S - highly unlikely.



Even after the US went to war with Japan on Dec 8th, there was still quite a large number of Americans that didnt see war with Germany as a given. Fortunatly, Hitler declared war on the US and made it easy for an American entry into the war with Germany.



> In Europe, without U.S intervention, Britain had held Germany at the Channel and had pushed Italy out of Eygpt. The Soviet Union had pushed Germany away from Moscow; and held them at a stalemate for the time being. Germany had no way of reaching across the Channel, and the airwar was moving in British favour from 1941 onwards - before U.S entry into it.



Assuming no US entry into the war, the British would not have had the manpower or resources to go on offensive operations onto the European mainland. 

The airwar in Europe was simply not going to be won by the British alone. It was US long range fighters that defeated the LW to the point that the allies could successfully invade Normandy. Without the US AAF's, there LW was going to be evenly matched with the RAF, maybe even superior in some aspects.



> Britain would have to adapt quicker, but the facts all remain that Germany had no chance of taking Britain. The RAF was raiding Axis Europe by day and night before the famed "Mighty 8th" came on the scene. It wasn't all Britain; as we had our entire Empire to fall back on - which kept up supplies of man and machine all through the war.



The point is, that for all the Germans needed to do to win, was to not allow an invasion on the contienent. Without the US threat, more resources could go to fight the Russians.



> The war would have been harder won, but it's obvious that Germany would have not had total victory. Obvious to anyone with a brain.



Without the resources of the US (manpower and material)........Britain and her allies would never have been able to invade France and defeat the Germans. And its plausable that Germany could have beaten Russia in 1943 had more resources been made available.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 7, 2007)

> The events of the Pacific are inapplicable here.


Okey dokey....


----------



## Cyrano (May 7, 2007)

We should remember that war against France and Britain was not the initial plan of Germany. When western Europe declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland, the German leadership was a bit shocked. They thought that the British simly didn't have the guts to do such a thing. And at least Hitler was hoping at the time of BoB that the British still would join them in their "crusade against bolshevism". 

So let's assume that US didn't join the war and Germany had won in the east (by taking Moscow in 1941). I think the Germans would have made peace with the British or aimed for invasion regime change. Same thing with France, some kind of puppet government or a regime with same kind of goals that the National Socialists had in Germany. And naturally withdrawing occupying German troops from France.

So in my opinion France and England were not fighting for the existence of their people and culture. Whoever had won, Axis or Allies, France and England would still exist today. Russia however was fighting for the existence of their race and culture. If Germany had won, slavic peoples would have become slave class and whole European side of Russia would have been completely Germanized. 

I would say the US saved Europe from two possible harmful ideologies, National Socialim and Communism. But to say that USA saved Europe twice is nonsense. During WWI both sides were equally bad/good, demonizing WWI Germans is purely the result of post WWII culture. 

Please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## syscom3 (May 7, 2007)

If the US did not enter into the war in Europe, these things we can be sure of:

1) The UK didn't have the capability to invade France or Italy at anytime. Maybe Sicilly, but thats it.
2) The UK was going to be strong enough to repel an invasion from the Germans.
3) Without extensive aid to the Russians, the Red Army could have collapsed at several times in 1942 and 1943.
4) Without the US supplying troops and material for the invasion of Italy, the Germans had mroe resources to throw at the eastern front. 
5) Without the credible invasion threat in France, the Germans had even more resources to throw at the Eastern front.
6) Without the resources of the USAAF, the Brits would be hard pressed to have any sustained air offensive against the German, and it would be done totally at night, when the german single engine fighters didnt fly, thus even more resources could be thrown at the Russian front.
7) Its no exaggeration to say the German army was generally superior in nearly all catagories to the BA in weapons, tactics and leadership.

End result:
Without the US in the war, Germany would have won or the Russians ultimatly would have prevailed. With the US in the war, Allied victory was guarenteed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 7, 2007)

plan_D said:


> The war would have been harder won, but it's obvious that Germany would have not had total victory. Obvious to anyone with a brain.


BINGO!


----------



## pbfoot (May 7, 2007)

What about lend lease was this in play


----------



## syscom3 (May 7, 2007)

Lend lease could only have taken you so far. You eventually need lots of troops to use it. If the US was not fighting in Europe, the PTO would receive the eqmt instead.

Again, noone has proven me wrong.....

The UK did not have the resources to win by themselves. Thus whomever wins between Russia and Germany will be the victor. Not only that, if the Germans manage to make gains in the Eastern front, then the UK position in the Middle East and Indian Ocean becomes untenable.

All Germany has to do to win and maintain control of Europe is to keep the Russians and Brits out. And keeping the Brits out was the easier of the two.

With the US in the fight, the allies will eventually win.

Anyone with half a brain knows that.


----------



## pbfoot (May 7, 2007)

Once again I'll ask is lend lease in play or United States totally neutral towards Britian and her Allies


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 7, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Without the US, Europe would have remained under German control. And if it was the Russians who ultimatly beat the Germans, then it was going to be
> T-34 tanks on the Channel, and not the BA in Berlin.
> 
> The US entry into the war in Europe guarenteed that the allies would win. Therefore America gets credit for saving the butt's of the European people.



That is the thing that you fail to realize. Not one single force could win the war by themselves. Without the Eastern Front the Germans would have been to powerful in the west. Without the Western Front, vice versa.

*You let pride along with your arguement with pD cloud your judgement.*

Now after WW2, in the Cold War yes the US kept the rest of Europe from being under Soviet Control, that is true because there was no other military power other than the US that could stand up by itself against the Soviet, however if WW3 had broken out, it would have been a combined effort again.


----------



## Marcel (May 7, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> If the US did not enter into the war in Europe, these things we can be sure of:
> 
> 3) Without extensive aid to the Russians, the Red Army could have collapsed at several times in 1942 and 1943.


I highly doubt that. The war would have lasted longer of course, but the russians had a lot of land to retreat to. They would simply hold on until the German Army had eneventibly exhausted themselves in the cold russian winter. 



> 7) Its no exaggeration to say the German army was generally superior in nearly all catagories to the BA in weapons, tactics and leadership.


Hmm, I still think the Germans eventually lost because lack of leadership and understanding of tactics in longterm warfare.



> End result:
> Without the US in the war, Germany would have won or the Russians ultimatly would have prevailed. With the US in the war, Allied victory was guarenteed.


The Russians were allied too at that moment 
But serious, of course we (europeans) should be very thankfull for what the US did for us. But they were not alone. I think all forces, UK, UA, USSR, Canada etc. were nescessary, not the USA alone, so to say the USA saved Europa alone is a little too much credit, I think.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 7, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> The events of the Pacific are inapplicable here.



No they are not. The PTO took up allied assets as well.

You can not pick and choose history to suit your personal agenda...

Nice try, but forget it.

Looks like your attempt at getting ay pD through this thread is backfiring in your face.


----------



## Gnomey (May 7, 2007)

The UK alone did not have the resources true but if you factor in the Empire there was a lot of manpower available there that wasn't used to its full potential. There were possibilities to recruit millions in India and Africa to help bolster the fighting forces of Britain. There could of been enough to cover the lack of American troops. The problem would really be equipment and if lend-lease had continued there wouldn't of been a problem there either so in theory the British could of made an attempt on the continent without the help of the American army. Besides if Hitler after the defeat of France and the failure in the Battle of Britian withdrew most of his troops to Russia and the British caught the Germans by surprise with a landing as Hitler had underestimated the British then it would just be a case of the same as after D-day but without the Americans. If the British had utilised the manpower of the colonies - introduced conscription - they could of had more men than they had which could of made up for the lack of American personell (they still would of been their as observers though). In balance the British Empire could of invaded Europe without American manpower but not without American equipment. Besides the way it happened the Americans were part of a team and didn't 'win' the war in Europe singlehandedly without they it could of still happened - would of taken longer perhaps but it still would of happened. The Americans were needed more for their manufacturing capacity than for their manpower although the manpower was an added boost for the beleaguered British troops (despite the Empire) but the equipment supplied by the Americans was more of a boost than the manpower if Britain had been able to source more men from the Empire.


----------



## amrit (May 7, 2007)

Firstly, let's distinguish between material and manpower.

Britain did indeed buy a lot of weapons, equipment and supplies from the States before they entered the war. And they would have continued to do so - as long as the US was willing to sell them to Britain. The constraints were not with the British Empire's buying power but with the unwillingness of the US to sell - only overcome by legislation change in the US.

The long range aircraft you mention - by which I presume you mainly mean the Mustang, was a colloborative effort. Without a British engine, the aircraft would have been useless as a long range aircraft. The question is - would the US have sold the aircraft and allowed the RAF to use it?

As to manpower - yes, Britain certainly played a part but the weren't a decisive factor. Even though it is often considered that Britain had a manpower shortage this isn't completely correct. What they had was a shortage of _trained_ soldiers that could be deployed along the US timetable. India had hardly been tapped, and political pressure on other Empire countries would certainly have elicited a greater response.

However, as far as I am concerned, the US played a very important role in Europe - but it was neither decisive nor did they "save" Europe. I would never deny their contribution, but neither would I over-estimate it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 7, 2007)

amrit said:


> However, as far as I am concerned, the US played a very important role in Europe - but it was neither decisive nor did they "save" Europe. I would never deny their contribution, but neither would I over-estimate it.



Very well said.


----------



## pbfoot (May 7, 2007)

Canada Australia New Zealand and South Africa were not part of the British Empire the Commonwealth yes Empire no


----------



## syscom3 (May 7, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Once again I'll ask is lend lease in play or United States totally neutral towards Britian and her Allies



Lend Lease is in play, with whatever is left over from the PTO going to the UK (which includes the commonwealth).

But the UK still has man power constraints which limits its ultimate fighting potential.

No matter how much material aid gets to the UK, you still dont have the man power to defeat Germany. Remember too, the RN needs lots of manpower to keep the sea lanes open (defensive operations, not directly threatening German industrial or military capacity), which isnt personell going to the RAF or BA (which are offensive compnants).


----------



## syscom3 (May 7, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is the thing that you fail to realize. Not one single force could win the war by themselves. Without the Eastern Front the Germans would have been to powerful in the west. Without the Western Front, vice versa.



Read my posts again. It plainly says that the UK needed the US to win, but without the US, it wa simpossible. I also plainly stated that the Russians could have won the war by themselves, and Europe would be speaking Russian not German.



> *You let pride along with your arguement with pD cloud your judgement.*



Quote me where I said the US single handidly won the war in Europe. I mearly said that without the US involvement, the UK wouldnt win. And without the US threat in 1943, then its possible the Germans could have beaten the Russians.

8) 



> Now after WW2, in the Cold War yes the US kept the rest of Europe from being under Soviet Control, that is true because there was no other military power other than the US that could stand up by itself against the Soviet, however if WW3 had broken out, it would have been a combined effort again.



This is about 1942. If the US stayed out of the fight, then the cold war would not have occured. All of Europe would either be under the domination of germany, or Stalinist Russia in which the US wouldnt have cared.


----------



## amrit (May 7, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Canada Australia New Zealand and South Africa were not part of the British Empire the Commonwealth yes Empire no



Normally PB I would agree with you but in this instance I did mean the Empire countries (i.e. not the one's listed by you) - I should have been clearer. I'll expand on my meaning - most of the African nations within the Empire contributed some black troops, but there was real resistence from the local colonial adminstrators for further recruitment, especially for armed troops (as opposed to service corps). This was also reflected in South Africa, where blacks were only allowed to join non-combatant units. When blacks were allowed to act as combatants, as in Burma, they did very well.

There were also issues over recruiting in the Middle East. And in India, the pre-war system of only recruiting from the "martial" races meant that many volunteers were turned away, especially in the early years of the war.

With a tighter grip on the Foreign Office, Whitehall could have ended some of these discriminations, and hence increase the British army's manpower.


----------



## syscom3 (May 7, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No they are not. The PTO took up allied assets as well.
> 
> You can not pick and choose history to suit your personal agenda...
> 
> ...



Youre right, the US would have used more of its assetts and materials in fighting the Japanese and not provided as much material aid to the Brits. Maybe even shift more of the destroyers in the Atlantic fleet to the Pacific and make the U-Boat war harder on the Brits?

And you cant get a grasp on what I am saying........

"The allies needed the US to win. The allies couldnt have won without the US. And only Russia had the capability to defeat Germany" (thus Russian spoken in Europe).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 7, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> And you cant get a grasp on what I am saying........



No I understnad fully where you are going with this. I have read eneogh of your posts on this forum and know how this thread started.



syscom3 said:


> "The allies needed the US to win. The allies couldnt have won without the US. And only Russia had the capability to defeat Germany" (thus Russian spoken in Europe).



And the US could not have done it without the allies either....


----------



## syscom3 (May 7, 2007)

> But serious, of course we (europeans) should be very thankfull for what the US did for us. But they were not alone. I think all forces, UK, UA, USSR, Canada etc. were nescessary, not the USA alone, so to say the USA saved Europa alone is a little too much credit, I think.



Explain to me how the Brits (and commonwealth) were going to have the resources in which to fight the Germans and win? Germany was not a maritime power, thus the RN could contril the sea lanes, but not strike the heart of German industrial power. The RAF didnt have the resources by itself to fight a 24/7/365 bombing campaign, let alone provide enough tactical aircraft to support an invasion. The BA? Sorry, but in every catagory, the German army was superior. 

Without US involvement in the war, you have two possible choices....

Germans win and Europe speaks German.
Russians win and Europe speaks Russian.

Now, with the US in the war, we provided enough materials and manpower to enable the allies to win. Therefore the US did indeed ensure the defeat of Germany. We were literally the big boys coming into the war to ensure victory.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 7, 2007)

No one is disputing the industrial capacity that the US provided.

I agree with you that the allies could not have done it without the US but I am a firm believe the US could not have done it alone either. That is my arguement here.

If you really want to be technical. Germany sealed her fate when she invaded to the East.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 7, 2007)

Tough discussion.... Thing is, I have problems including Great Britain with Europe.... I think of it in terms of mainland Europe and the British Isles....

That being said, I feel that without US intervention, most if not all of mainland Europe would be speaking German, but I feel that the British would still be of their own accord.... I feel that the Germans could have beaten the Russians without the US getting into it, and could have also held onto France, Italy, Netherlands etc etc at the same time....

I dont think that the Germans could have effectively gotten across the Channel for the "Sealion" invasion....

I do feel that everyone is trying to jump on syscoms back on this... He has many valid points, but I will reiterate one thing.... He is not saying that the US did it all on their own... He knows thats not true.... 

Without US help, Germany most likely goes undefeated in this one...


----------



## syscom3 (May 7, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> The UK alone did not have the resources true but if you factor in the Empire there was a lot of manpower available there that wasn't used to its full potential. There were possibilities to recruit millions in India and Africa to help bolster the fighting forces of Britain. There could of been enough to cover the lack of American troops. The problem would really be equipment and if lend-lease had continued there wouldn't of been a problem there either so in theory the British could of made an attempt on the continent without the help of the American army. Besides if Hitler after the defeat of France and the failure in the Battle of Britian withdrew most of his troops to Russia and the British caught the Germans by surprise with a landing as Hitler had underestimated the British then it would just be a case of the same as after D-day but without the Americans. If the British had utilised the manpower of the colonies - introduced conscription - they could of had more men than they had which could of made up for the lack of American personell (they still would of been their as observers though). In balance the British Empire could of invaded Europe without American manpower but not without American equipment. Besides the way it happened the Americans were part of a team and didn't 'win' the war in Europe singlehandedly without they it could of still happened - would of taken longer perhaps but it still would of happened. The Americans were needed more for their manufacturing capacity than for their manpower although the manpower was an added boost for the beleaguered British troops (despite the Empire) but the equipment supplied by the Americans was more of a boost than the manpower if Britain had been able to source more men from the Empire.



And how many years was it going to take to conscript, train and equip those troops? And all the while Germany (assuming Russia loses or just accepts an armistance) isnt sitting still, developing new weapons. And thats assuming that the US would provide a bottomliess pit of money and material for you, which would be problematic given that the US was not directly fighting in the war in Europe.

Plus if it was one thing that was demonstrated in France in 1944, the BA wasnt exactly known for its ability to fight a mobile war, the way the US, Russian and Germans knew how to do. Even an invasion of France without US involvement would have meant the defeat of your army.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 7, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Tough discussion.... Thing is, I have problems including Great Britain with Europe.... I think of it in terms of mainland Europe and the British Isles....
> 
> That being said, I feel that without US intervention, most if not all of mainland Europe would be speaking German, but I feel that the British would still be of their own accord.... I feel that the Germans could have beaten the Russians without the US getting into it, and could have also held onto France, Italy, Netherlands etc etc at the same time....
> 
> ...



I think most people are saying the same thing, it is just being shot passed one another.

I dont agree with syscoms complete assessment but I agree with part of it and I disagree with part of it.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 7, 2007)

So lets shorten it up a bit.... 

As my last sentence implies, I feel that without US intervention in the ETO of WWII, Mainland Europe, for the most part, remains under German occupation....

Anyone agree or disagree???


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 7, 2007)

I dont think so. Russia would have moved west eventually. Russia was just to much for the Germans to chew off in my opinion.


----------



## renrich (May 7, 2007)

Aside from all the other factors youall are mentioning, without the US in the war there is no doubt that Germany would not have been defeated in 1945. By 1946 the Germans would probably have had a nuclear device. The British and Russians would not. Is there any doubt that Hitler would have used it? Who wins then?


----------



## Gnomey (May 7, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> And how many years was it going to take to conscript, train and equip those troops? And all the while Germany (assuming Russia loses or just accepts an armistance) isnt sitting still, developing new weapons. And thats assuming that the US would provide a bottomliess pit of money and material for you, which would be problematic given that the US was not directly fighting in the war in Europe.
> 
> Plus if it was one thing that was demonstrated in France in 1944, the BA wasnt exactly known for its ability to fight a mobile war, the way the US, Russian and Germans knew how to do. Even an invasion of France without US involvement would have meant the defeat of your army.



Years but without a US timetable of events that wouldn't matter so much. The British could fight a mobile war if the commanders were right, most of the time the commanders were too cautious and didn't press on without stopping (like Patton). It wasn't that the British couldn't fight a mobile war it was just that the commanders were too cautious to fight one on the scale that Patton was doing it.


----------



## Glider (May 7, 2007)

Had the US stayed out of Europe then I have to agree with those that say that Germany would not have been able to invade the UK and that the UK would not have been able to retake Europe from Germany.

Re Russia I do not believe that Russia would have been able to invade Germany without US aid either. To a large degree the war in Russia is one of logistics and the transport of those logistics to where they are needed. The USA gave Russia the trucks to move the supplies to the front and to a massive degree the material to build and run the railways to get the supplies from the factories to the depots close to the front. 

I can see the UK being a larger version of Taiwan facing German held areas instead of China.


----------



## bigZ (May 7, 2007)

A lot has been said about man power required to beat Germany. But didn't Finland manage to hold off Germany and Yugolsalvia make itself independent? So that puts kibosh on all of Europe speaking Russian or German. Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden neutral so I cant see these speaking German immediately.

Am sure without the US the war would have dragged on. But I don't think the 3rd Reich would have been sustainable.

Personally I am fedup of the glamourising of the whole German war effort. So they had sexy planes like the 262 and tanks like the panther. But a Tigers a pile of cr*p against a Typhoon rocket even when it has fuel and is in full working order. They wern't even a fully mechnised army, unlike the British and the US. 

Guess the film when comparing the German Army to Napoleons retrea from Moscow?

"The carts. 

They're using carts to move
their wounded and the supplies.

The carts came to me in my dream.
I couldn't figure it out.

Then I remembered. . .

. . .that nightmare in the snow.
The agonizing retreat from Moscow.

How cold it was. 

They threw the wounded and what was
left of the supplies in the carts. 

Napoleon was finished."


----------



## mkloby (May 7, 2007)

bigZ said:


> A lot has been said about man power required to beat Germany. But didn't Finland manage to hold off Germany and Yugolsalvia make itself independent?



I'm not sure what you mean by that one...


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 7, 2007)

I am kinda wondering: If the USA had stayed out of the war, (maybe with Japan) and the Russians decided to invade Britain in say 1945-1946, would they have had more success than the Germans? 

If Russia had tried to attack in a "Battle of Britain" style in 1940 instead of the Germans, would they have had any luck? Again, no US military to help.

I guess it's hard to say. I would be leaning towards the language being Russian today, instead of German. But of course, that may just hold for mainland Europe, not Britain.


----------



## bigZ (May 7, 2007)

mkloby said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by that one...



I meant with only 500,000 soldiers throughout WWII Finland held off Germany plus Germany. Yugoslavia gained independence with a partisan force without using significant manpower from the US, Russia or GB. Just trying to put some reasonable doubt inro the argument that without US manpower Germany could not possibly be beaten.


----------



## Glider (May 7, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> I am kinda wondering: If the USA had stayed out of the war, (maybe with Japan) and the Russians decided to invade Britain in say 1945-1946, would they have had more success than the Germans?
> 
> If Russia had tried to attack in a "Battle of Britain" style in 1940 instead of the Germans, would they have had any luck? Again, no US military to help.
> 
> I guess it's hard to say. I would be leaning towards the language being Russian today, instead of German. But of course, that may just hold for mainland Europe, not Britain.



In 1939/40 Germany and Britian had the most advanced airforces and supporting technologies e.g. Radar, by far. Had Russia attacked Britian they would have been totally outclassed, as they would have been had they tried attacking Germany.
Also the Germany Navy was very small but professional and well equipped, the Russian navy was way behind and wouldn't have posed a threat.


----------



## timshatz (May 7, 2007)

Sounds like, long and short, none of the parties involved had the power to put a knockout punch on the others. Without the US intervetion, the war in Europe drags on. Britian has no continetal force, Russians and Germans go at it hammer and tongs until....what? 

The thread has morphed from "Did the US save Europe?" to "What does the European War look like without American involvement?". That is a far more interesting question. 

No Lend Lease, everybody fights with what they have. 

I think we'd have to think along the lines of:

"Who has the best industrial base", 
"Who has the largest manpower pool to draw from?", 
"Who is going to adapt fast enough to take advantage of what they have?"

In truth, this is a hell of a difficult question. US involvement transformed the war in Europe. Taking it away, especially Lend Lease, makes what we know as history unrecognizable. 

In truth, I really don't know where to start. Uboat War? Eastern Front? Africa? Night Bomber Offensive?


----------



## Cyrano (May 7, 2007)

bigZ said:


> I meant with only 500,000 soldiers throughout WWII Finland held off Germany plus Germany.



I'm not sure what you mean by this, but Finland was allied with Germany. There were German divisions in Finland. After peacemaking in 1944 Russians demanded that we start a war against German troops which were retreating to Norway. So war between Finland and Germany was a mere skirmish. Finns were very reluctant to fight former brothers in arms.


----------



## bigZ (May 7, 2007)

Cyrano said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by this, but Finland was allied with Germany. There were German divisions in Finland. After peacemaking in 1944 Russians demanded that we start a war against German troops which were retreating to Norway. So war between Finland and Germany was a mere skirmish. Finns were very reluctant to fight former brothers in arms.



Sorry meant to say Russia.


----------



## syscom3 (May 7, 2007)

It still boils down to this:

1) The UK (which I include its commonwealth countries) could not have been invaded by Germany OR Russia

2) Germany might have defeated Russia without being distracted by US material and forces.

3) Germany might have been defeated by Russia simply by attrition.

4) Either way, the UK speaks English and all of the rest of Europe speaks German or Russian.

5) The UK and its forces from around the world could not have defeated Germany through an invasion.


----------



## bigZ (May 7, 2007)

timshatz said:


> Sounds like, long and short, none of the parties involved had the power to put a knockout punch on the others. Without the US intervetion, the war in Europe drags on. Britian has no continetal force, Russians and Germans go at it hammer and tongs until....what?
> 
> The thread has morphed from "Did the US save Europe?" to "What does the European War look like without American involvement?". That is a far more interesting question.
> 
> ...



Agreed. I prefer this argument to the US saved your ar*e. Which I personally find distasteful as it direspects all those who fought and died from the combatant nations involved. Its especially bad form when it comes from people who who to the best of my knowledge didn't serve during that conflict.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 7, 2007)

> It still boils down to this:
> 1) The UK (which I include its commonwealth countries) could not have been invaded by Germany OR Russia
> 2) Germany might have defeated Russia without being distracted by US material and forces.
> 3) Germany might have been defeated by Russia simply by attrition.
> ...


I think I have to agree with u on all 5 points...


----------



## Lucky13 (May 8, 2007)

Russian or German, it doesn't matter. I think that they would have one H**L of job to stem all kinds of gerilla warfare within their borders...
Just look at Finnish Winter War...
"Soviet leader Josef Stalin had expected to conquer the whole country by the end of 1939, but Finnish resistance frustrated the Soviet forces, who outnumbered the Finns 4:1 in men, 100:1 in tanks and 30:1 in aircraft. Finland held out until March 1940, when the Moscow Peace Treaty was signed ceding about 10% of Finland's territory (excluding its population) and 20% of its industrial capacity to the Soviet Union."


Finland:
250,000 men
30 tanks
130 aircraft
26,662 dead
39,886 wounded
1,000 captured

Soviet Union:
1,000,000 men
3,000 tanks
3,800 aircraft
126,875 dead or missing
264,908 wounded
3,100 captured

And how much did the Russians gain from easy victory? Not very much as you can see in this map. Was it worth it? I don't think so.







The Partisans were some hard fighting people too and they gave just as much as they took. I think that we should think about this as well, they would have been kept busy....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2007)

timshatz said:


> Sounds like, long and short, none of the parties involved had the power to put a knockout punch on the others. Without the US intervetion, the war in Europe drags on. Britian has no continetal force, Russians and Germans go at it hammer and tongs until....what?
> 
> The thread has morphed from "Did the US save Europe?" to "What does the European War look like without American involvement?". That is a far more interesting question.



I agree with you on that. As I stated no side had the power to destroy Germany at that time on there own but together they were unstoppable.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> It still boils down to this:
> 
> 1) The UK (which I include its commonwealth countries) could not have been invaded by Germany OR Russia
> 
> ...



Believe it or not syscom, the more I think about it, I actually agree with you.


----------



## Emac44 (May 8, 2007)

I have another scenerio. for the USSR. If the border disputes between USSR and Japan had increased to full scale war from 1938 to when Operation Barbarosa occured could Russia been abled to maintain a 2 front war stretching over half a world away in the Asian Theatre of War? And if Japan had not attacked the areas of the Pacific and Asain Countries including Pearl Harbour Philippines Malaya Siam Singapore Burma Dutch East Indies etc. What would have been the outcome in that area and how so for the British and Commonwealth being abled to employ more troops to Middle East and North Africa and possibley England to bolster the Empire Troops and Commonwealth Troops etc to fight Germany and Italy. 2 scenerios here. One Japan concentrates war against Russia in Manchuria and not invade other regions no Pearl Harbour Philippines Malaya etc. And more troops sent from Far Eastern Allied Command back the the ETO. How would those scenerios tie into this thread. Or if Japan just remained satisfied with China and Manchuria and not attacked Russia or Allied Countries in Asia and Pacific etc. This is like the origins of the thread to be a WHAT IF. Another scenerio I just thought up if the US had been involved in WW2 but the Allies had lost the Battle of the Atlantic against U Boats and huge convoys were attacked and destroyed knocking virtually US War Effort out to the scene to supply material and men to European Theatre. What I am saying this is one thread with too many variables. Could Europe been split between USSR and Nazi Germany quiet possible if we stick to the origins of this thread. But me being me. I am going to add my variables into the equation. What if Hitler had been assasinated in Munich during the Munich Conference would War in Europe had occured? And if Mussolini had decided not to ally Italy with Germany and remained neutral like Spain, What would have been the consquences in Europe and North Africa at that stage?

Virtually Gentlemen there is no answer correct or incorrect as you would have to consider all different types of scenerios and variables to the question placed forward


----------



## Lucky13 (May 8, 2007)

On February 3, 1940, Yamamoto briefed Captain Kanji Ogawa of Naval Intelligence on the potential attack plan, asking him to start intelligence gathering on Pearl Harbor. Ogawa already had spies in Hawaii, including Japanese Consular officials with an intelligence remit, and he arranged for help from a German (and perhaps from family members as well) already living in Hawaii who was an Abwehr agent. None had been providing much militarily useful information. He planned to add 29-year-old Ensign Takeo Yoshikawa. By the spring of 1941, Yamamoto officially made a request for additional Hawaiian intelligence, and Yoshikawa boarded the liner Nitta-maru at Yokohama. He had grown his hair longer than military length, and assumed the cover name Tadashi Morimura.

Yoshikawa began gathering intelligence in earnest by taking auto trips around the main islands, and toured Oahu in a small plane, posing as a tourist. He visited Pearl Harbor frequently, sketching the harbor and location of ships from the crest of a hill. Once, he gained access to Hickam Field in a taxi, memorizing the number of visible planes, pilots, hangars, barracks and soldiers. He was also able to discover that Sunday was the day of the week on which the largest number of ships were likely to be in harbor, that PBY patrol planes went out every morning and evening, and that there was an antisubmarine net in the mouth of the harbor. Information was returned to Japan in coded form in Consular communications, and by direct delivery to intelligence officers aboard Japanese ships calling at Hawaii by consulate staff

If Yamamoto briefed Captain Kanji Ogawa as early as on February 3, 1940, about an attack on the USA, you ask yourself WHEN did they first start to talk about an attack? Could they have started even before the WWII started?

Hitler was caught out of town at the time of Pearl Harbor and had to get back to Berlin and summon the Reichstag to acclaim war. His great worry, and that of his foreign minister, was that the Americans might get their declaration of war in ahead of his own. As Joachim von Ribbentrop explained it, "A great power does not allow itself to be declared war upon; it declares war on others." He did not need to lose much sleep; the Roosevelt administration was quite willing to let the Germans take the lead. Just to make sure, however, that hostilities started immediately, Hitler had already issued orders to his navy, straining at the leash since October 1939, to begin sinking American ships forthwith, even before the formalities of declaring war. Now that Germany had a big navy on its side (Japan's), there was no need to wait even an hour....


----------



## Lucky13 (May 8, 2007)

*The Memo* 

0p-16-F-2 ON1 7 October 1940
Memorandum for the Director

Subject: Estimate of the Situation in the Pacific and
Recommendations for Action by the United States.

1. The United States today finds herself confronted
by a hostile Germany and Italy in Europe and by an equally
hostile Japan in the Orient. Russia, the great land link between
these two groups of hostile powers, is at present neutral, but
in all probability favorably inclined towards the Axis powers,
and her favorable attitude towards these powers may be expected
to increase in direct proportion to increasing success in their
prosecution of the war in Europe. Germany and Italy have been
successful in war on the continent of Europe and all of Europe
is either under their military control or has been forced into
subservience. Only the British Empire is actively opposing by
war the growing world dominance of Germany and Italy and their
satellites.

2. The United States at first remained coolly aloof
from the conflict in Europe and there is considerable evidence
to support the view that Germany and Italy attempted by every
method within their power to foster a continuation of American
indifference to the outcome of the struggle in Europe. Paradoxically,
every success of German and Italian arms has led to further
increases in United States sympathy for and material support of
the British Empire, until at the present time the United States
government stands committed to a policy of rendering every
support short of war the changes rapidly increasing that
the United States will become a full fledged ally of the British
Empire in the very near future. The final failure of German
and Italian diplomacy to keep the United States in the role of
a disinterested spectator has forced them to adopt the policy of
developing threats to U.S. security in other spheres of the world,
notably by the threat of revolutions in South and Central America
by Axis-dominated groups and by the stimulation of Japan to further
aggressions and threats in the Far East in the hope that by these
mean the Unites States would become so confused in thought
and fearful of her own immediate security as to cause her to
become so preoccupied in purely defensive preparations as to
virtually preclude U.S. aid to Great Britain in any form. As a
result of this policy, Germany and Italy have lately concluded
a military alliance with Japan directed against the United States
If the published terms of this treaty and the pointed
utterances of German, Italian and Japanese leaders can be believed,
and there seems no ground on which to doubt either, the three
totalitarian powers agree to make war on the United States,
should she come to the assistance of England, or should she
attempt to forcibly interfere with Japan's aims in the Orient and,
[2]
furthermore, Germany and Italy expressly reserve the right to
determine whether American aid to Britain, short of war, is a
cause for war or not after they have succeeded in defeating
England. In other words, after England has been disposed of
her enemies will decide whether or not to immediately proceed
with an attack on the United States. Due to geographic conditions,
neither Germany nor Italy are in a position to offer any
material aid to Japan. Japan, on the contrary, can be of much
help to both Germany and Italy by threatening and possibly even
attacking British dominions and supply routes from Australia,
India and the Dutch East Indies, thus materially weakening
Britain's position in opposition to the Axis powers in Europe.
In exchange for this service, Japan receives a free hand to seize
all of Asia that she can find it possible to grab, with the
added promise that Germany and Italy will do all in their power
to keep U.S. attention so attracted as to prevent the United
States from taking positive aggressive action against Japan.
Here again we have another example of the Axis-Japanese
diplomacy which is aimed at keeping American power immobilized,
and by threats and alarms to so confuse American thought as to
preclude prompt decisive action by the United States in either
sphere of action. It cannot be emphasized to strongly that
the last thing desired by either the Axis powers in Europe
or by Japan in the Far East is prompt, warlike action by the
United States in either theatre of operations.

3. An examination of the situation in Europe leads
to the conclusion that there is little that we can do now,
immediately to help Britain that is not already being done.
We have no trained army to send to the assistance of England,
nor will we have for at least a year. We are now trying to
increase the flow of materials to England and to bolster the
defense of England in every practicable way and this aid will
undoubtedly be increased. On the other hand, there is little
that Germany or Italy can do against us as long as England
continues in the war and her navy maintains control of the
Atlantic. The one danger to our position lies in the possible
early defeat of the British Empire with the British Fleet falling
intact into the hands of the Axis powers. The possibility of
such an event occurring would be materially lessened were we
actually allied in war with the British or at the very least
were taking active measures to relieve the pressure on Britain
in other spheres of action. To sum up: the threat to our security
in the Atlantic remains small so long as the British Fleet
remains dominant in that ocean and friendly to the United States.

4. In the Pacific, Japan by virtue of her alliance
with Germany and Italy is a definite threat to the security
of the British Empire and once the British Empire is gone the
power of Japan-Germany and Italy is to be directed against the
United States. A powerful land attack by Germany and Italy
through the Balkans and North Africa against the Suez Canal
with a Japanese threat or attack on Singapore would have very
serious results for the British Empire. Could Japan be diverted
or neutralized, the fruits of a successful attack on the Suez
Canal could not be as far reaching and beneficial to the Axis
powers as if such a success was also accompanied by the virtual
elimination of British sea power from the Indian Ocean, thus
[3]
opening up a European supply route for Japan and a sea route for
Eastern raw materials to reach Germany and Italy, Japan must be
diverted if the British and American ( ) blockade of Europe
and possibly Japan (?) is to remain even partially in effect.

5. While as pointed out in Paragraph (3) there is
little that the United States can do to immediately retrieve
the situation in Europe, the United States is able to effectively
nullify Japanese aggressive action, and do it without lessening
U.S. material assistance to Great Britain.

6. An examination of Japan's present position as
opposed to the United States reveals a situation as follows:

Advantages Disadvantages

1. Geographically strong position 1. A million and a half men
of Japanese Islands. engaged in an exhausting war
on the Asiatic Continent.
2. A highly centralized strong 2. Domestic economy and food
capable government. supply severely straightened.

3. Rigid control of economy on 3. A serious lack of sources of
a war basis. raw materials for war. Notably
oil, iron and cotton.
4. A people inured to hardship 4. Totally cut off from supplies
and war. from Europe.
5. A powerful army. 5. Dependent upon distant overseas
routes for essential supplies.
6. A skillful navy about 2/3 6. Incapable of increasing
the strength of the U.S. Navy. manufacture and supply of war
materials without free access
to U.S. or European markets.
7. Some stocks of raw materials. 7. Major cities and industrial
centers extremely vulnerable
to air attack.
8. Weather until April rendering
direct sea operations in the
vicinity of Japan difficult.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 8, 2007)

7. In the Pacific the United States possesses a very strong
defensive position and a navy and naval air force at present
in that ocean capable of long distance offensive operation. There
are certain other factors which at the present time are strongly
in our favor, viz:

A. Philippine Islands still held by the United States.
B. Friendly and possibly allied government in control
of the Dutch East Indies.
C. British still hold Hong Kong and Singapore and
are favorable to us.
D. Important Chinese armies are still in the field
in China against Japan.
E. A small U.S. Naval Force capable of seriously
threatening Japan's southern supply routes
[4]
already in the theatre of operations.
F. A considerable Dutch naval force is in the
Orient that would be of value if allied to U.S.

8. A consideration of the foregoing leads to the
conclusion that prompt aggressive naval action against Japan by
the United States would render Japan incapable of affording any
help to Germany and Italy in their attack on England and that
Japan itself would be faced with a situation in which her navy
could be forced to fight on most unfavorable terms or accept
fairly early collapse of the country through the force of blockade.
A prompt and early declaration of war after entering into suitable
arrangements with England and Holland, would be most effective
in bringing about the early collapse of Japan and thus eliminating
our enemy in the pacific before Germany and Italy could strike
at us effectively. Furthermore, elimination of Japan must surely
strengthen Britain's position against Germany and Italy and, in
addition, such action would increase the confidence and support
of all nations who tend to be friendly towards us.

9. It is not believed that in the present state of
political opinion the United States government is capable of
declaring war against Japan without more ado; and it is barely
possible that vigorous action on our part might lead the
Japanese to modify their attitude. Therefore, the following
course of action is suggested:

A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of
British bases in the Pacific, particularly
Singapore.
B. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of
base facilities and acquisition of supplies
in the Dutch East Indies.
C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government
of Chiang-Kai-Shek.
D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to
the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in
the Pacific in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.
G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese
demands for undue economic concessions,
particularly oil.
H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan,
in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed
by the British Empire.

10. If by these means Japan could be led to commit an
overt act of war, so much the better. At all events we must be fully
prepared to accept the threat of war.

A. H. McCollum
CC-0p-16
0p-16-F
File
[5]
0p-16-F-2 ON1 7 October 1940
Summary
1. The United States is faced by a hostile combination of
powers in both the Atlantic and Pacific.

2. British naval control of the Atlantic prevents hostile
action against the United States in this area.

3. Japan's growing hostility presents an attempt to open sea
communications between Japan and the Mediterranean by an
attack on the British lines of communication in the
Indian Ocean.

4. Japan must be diverted if British opposition in Europe is
to remain effective.

5. The United States naval forces now in the Pacific are
capable of so containing and harassing Japan as to nullify
her assistance to Germany and Italy.

6. It is to the interest of the United States to eliminate
Japan's threat in the Pacific at the earliest opportunity
by taking prompt and aggressive action against Japan.

7. In the absence of United States ability to take the
political offensive, additional naval force should be
sent to the orient and agreements entered into with Holland
and England that would serve as an effective check against
Japanese encroachments in South-eastern Asia.
[6]
Comment by Captain Knox

It is unquestionably to out general interest
that Britain be not licked - just now she has a stalemate
and probably cant do better. We ought to make it certain
that she at least gets a stalemate. For this she will probably
need from us substantial further destroyers and air reinforcements
to England. We should not precipitate anything in the
Orient that should hamper our ability to do this - so long as
probability continues.

If England remains stable, Japan will be cautious
in the Orient. Hence our assistance to England in the Atlantic
is also protection to her and us in the Orient.

However, I concur in your courses of action
we must be ready on both sides and probably strong enough
to care for both.
D.W.K.
Re your #6: - no reason for battleships not
visiting west coast in bunches.


----------



## syscom3 (May 8, 2007)

EMAC, I think a war between Japan and Russia would end up in a Japanese defeat, with little change in the situation in the east

The IJA was strictly light infantry. And its tanks and artillery found to be "wanting" in many ascpects.


----------



## timshatz (May 8, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> EMAC, I think a war between Japan and Russia would end up in a Japanese defeat, with little change in the situation in the east
> 
> The IJA was strictly light infantry. And its tanks and artillery found to be "wanting" in many ascpects.



Japanese and Russians did fight a war at Nomonhan in 1940. Japanese came out on the losing end, big time. Across the board. Japanese did not have the mechanized ability to fight an armoured force on open ground.


----------



## Bernhart (May 8, 2007)

languages don't change whether your occupied by another country or not. russia takes over large part of europe for decades and poland still speaks polish, Germans still speak German, and so on...


----------



## syscom3 (May 8, 2007)

Bernhart said:


> languages don't change whether your occupied by another country or not. russia takes over large part of europe for decades and poland still speaks polish, Germans still speak German, and so on...



Dont take it so literal.


----------



## renrich (May 8, 2007)

I would like to hear from some of you what you think the consequences would have been if the US wasn't involved in WW2 and Nazi Germany had nuclear bombs in 1946-47.


----------



## pbfoot (May 8, 2007)

renrich said:


> I would like to hear from some of you what you think the consequences would have been if the US wasn't involved in WW2 and Nazi Germany had nuclear bombs in 1946-47.


There wouldn't be an Israel ,Stalingrad would have a glassy surface and so on


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2007)

Given realistic situations where Japan still attacks the U.S, forcing the U.S into the Pacific war thus freeing up British troops that would have otherwise had to be diverted to the Far East - the British Commonwealth and U.S.S.R alliance would have eventually defeated Germany. 

Timshatz has actually hit the nail on the head; there's no dead certainty as to what would have really happened. There's only an idea which could be way off for everyone, and anyone. And Britain is part of Europe, as much as we hate to be so. Instantly, you've changed the argument from Europe to Continental Europe. Which kind of makes me making a point ... really pointless - because I think the idea of "America saving Britain" being a load of crap and don't care about Continental Europe. 

Given the fact that syscom has accepted a continuation of lend-lease then the Soviet Union retains the supplies given to it by the U.S.A during World War II - meaning the efforts on the Eastern Front would have been a replica of true to life. 
The airwar over Great Britain and North-West Europe would have been an exact replica until late 1942 when U.S air forces began albeit slowly to make a difference in weight of attack. This meant that the RAF was on the offensive in European skies - which lays the way for the offensive on the ground which was being achieved in North Africa ... and, even given U.S lend-lease (as syscom has stated), there would be a victory there as Operation _Torch_ was only a mild component of the victory - it was all for the British 8th Army. 

For "lack of manpower" - the British Empire Commonwealth had more people than the U.S or Germany for the war effort. The need to train and equip them simply means the war would have dragged on longer.

Britain would have been pounding away at German targets longer; and as the war developed the means to hit these targets with greater weight and precision would have been developed. Meaning the German oil refineries and production plants would have been suffering Grand Slam strikes before 1945 was out. 

And for the nuclear bomb ... no. British intelligence knew all about any German nuclear bomb plans and it would have been shut down. Plus if the U.S were not there to develop the weapon, Britain would have put resources into it. Since Britain was in the early idea stage before the war and handed all the information to the U.S.


----------



## Emac44 (May 8, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> EMAC, I think a war between Japan and Russia would end up in a Japanese defeat, with little change in the situation in the east
> 
> The IJA was strictly light infantry. And its tanks and artillery found to be "wanting" in many ascpects.



Maybe so Sys but it would still have been a 2 front war if this border problems had esculated to full blown war. Finland didn't have an overall advantage of mechanized equipment either in 1939 yet had defeated Russian Troops with little they did have until overwhelming numbers of USSR Troops swung the war into Russia's favour. And considering that given USSR capability was curtailed by Stalin Himself on the Red Army as seen not only in the Finnish War but also in Operation Barbarosa and earlier stages of those battles where Russian Mechanized Armour suffered badly due to operational command having been eliminated earlier by Stalin. To demiss the IJA Sys so easily as you have done is understandable to your way of thinking but I added this variables as there are other effecting situations that could have possibley occured.


And I did include with those other variables and scenerios that if Mussolini had decided to remain neutral like that of Franco's Spain and the Axis hadn't developed as such of WW2 how would this have effected Germany with no Italy in North Africa or the need for an Afrika Corp as Germany wasn't capable of invading England let alone invading North African Coast to insert Afrika Corps. Germany on her own had limitations as well Sys and did require her own Allies in the Axis. It wasn't all Germany during WW2. For me I am just expounding further into your set scene scenerio


----------



## syscom3 (May 8, 2007)

plan_D said:


> Given realistic situations where Japan still attacks the U.S, forcing the U.S into the Pacific war thus freeing up British troops that would have otherwise had to be diverted to the Far East - the British Commonwealth and U.S.S.R alliance would have eventually defeated Germany.



Not so fast..... just because you had forces in Asia doesnt mean they were equiped for or in numbers necessary for them to be fighting in Europe.

Under no circumstance, could I see extensive US forces fighting in the CBI. Even in 1942, there were quite a few Americans and govt officials that saw no reason to fight for British colonial purposes.



> Timshatz has actually hit the nail on the head; there's no dead certainty as to what would have really happened. There's only an idea which could be way off for everyone, and anyone. And Britain is part of Europe, as much as we hate to be so. Instantly, you've changed the argument from Europe to Continental Europe. Which kind of makes me making a point ... really pointless - because I think the idea of "America saving Britain" being a load of crap and don't care about Continental Europe.



There is no evidence that the UK had the resources necessary to defeat the Germans alone. Fact is, it was US industrial suprememcy and manpower that tipped the scales in favor of the allies. Like I said, only the USSR had the capacity to defeat the Germans, and even untill 1944, that was not a given.



> Given the fact that syscom has accepted a continuation of lend-lease then the Soviet Union retains the supplies given to it by the U.S.A during World War II - meaning the efforts on the Eastern Front would have been a replica of true to life.



Lend Lease helped to a point. And if the US was not going to fight in Europe, all convoys would be manned by british ships and men. And that meant the Atlantic was going to be stretched to the breaking point. It was also the US/British forces fighting in the Med in 1942 that tied up the Germans to some degree.



> The airwar over Great Britain and North-West Europe would have been an exact replica until late 1942 when U.S air forces began albeit slowly to make a difference in weight of attack. This meant that the RAF was on the offensive in European skies - which lays the way for the offensive on the ground which was being achieved in North Africa ... and, even given U.S lend-lease (as syscom has stated), there would be a victory there as Operation _Torch_ was only a mild component of the victory - it was all for the British 8th Army.



The RAF did a fine job in 1942 and for 1/2 of 1943..... but untill the P38's and P51's went deep into Germany, the RAF was not contributing to the attrition of the LW.



> For "lack of manpower" - the British Empire Commonwealth had more people than the U.S or Germany for the war effort. The need to train and equip them simply means the war would have dragged on longer.



Not true. WW2 was a technical/industrial war. You had lots of bodies from your colonies, but they were mostly illiterate, and of dubious loyalties. And then how are you going to train them, equip them and get them to the battlefront before Germany advances even further in its technological adavantages?




> Britain would have been pounding away at German targets longer; and as the war developed the means to hit these targets with greater weight and precision would have been developed. Meaning the German oil refineries and production plants would have been suffering Grand Slam strikes before 1945 was out.



Untill you defeated the LW, then your bombers were going to take ever increasing loss's, to the point you could not make good the losses.



> And for the nuclear bomb ... no. British intelligence knew all about any German nuclear bomb plans and it would have been shut down. Plus if the U.S were not there to develop the weapon, Britain would have put resources into it. Since Britain was in the early idea stage before the war and handed all the information to the U.S.



Germany developing an atomic bomb is problematic. One thing for sure though.... Only the US had the industrial and scientific capacity to develope it on our own (yes I know the contributions from the Brit scientists).


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2007)

I'm not saying that the U.S would move into the CBI - the U.S made little contribution to the CBI theatre as it was. My comment was made to point out that Britain would not need to bolster the CBI theatre as Japan would be fighting the U.S in the PTO just like what historically occured. 

Great Britain alone did not have the resources to fight Germany; but Great Britain, her Empire and her Commonwealth did. Canada alone would have kept Britain supplied; you under-estimate the power of the British Commonwealth in the 1940s. There is no evidence that the British Commonwealth didn't have the industrial capacity to defeat Germany; it's all over-shadowed by the U.S industry. But the fact remains that Britain and her Commonwealth out-produced Germany. 

British and Commonwealth men and ships would man the Atlantic convoys; that's a lot of men. The Med would have been won without the U.S additional strength - the U.S presence just made it easier. 

The RAF did a fine job throughout the entirety of the war, while losing a lot we maintained the pressure and more importantly the offensive. The RAF bombed by day and night; it was only the lack of effective equipment that prevented a better result. Unfortunately the British lacked the foresight to introduce the Mosquito in 1940. But even so, the British bombing campaign was extensive and the Luftwaffe was feeling it from the Eastern and Western fronts. The RAF hit Cologne before America was even in the war; is that deep enough into Germany for you? 

That whole "dubious loyalties" is crap, sorry. The colonies and Commonwealth were going to fight; they continue to say now that they'd have fought on and on to victory under the Union Jack. There were plenty of bodies; which as I said would take time training and equipping but it would have been done. Germany was not so far advanced over Britain in the most important area which is the air, so Britain and Germany would just be maintaining an equal balance. 

The British and her Commonwealth would maintain the losses a lot longer than the Germans - especially since they'd be fighting on the Eastern Front too. With the development of better strike platforms and better weapons themselves, the German industry would feel the payloads in ever increasing numbers with more devestating accuracy. The RAF would cripple the Axis industry ... and win the war. 

In real terms, the Allies didn't need to collapse the Axis industry but it could have been done.


----------



## Emac44 (May 9, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Not so fast..... just because you had forces in Asia doesnt mean they were equiped for or in numbers necessary for them to be fighting in Europe.
> 
> Under no circumstance, could I see extensive US forces fighting in the CBI. Even in 1942, there were quite a few Americans and govt officials that saw no reason to fight for British colonial purposes.
> 
> ...



Not so fast Sys. This is conjecture only if the US had not entered WW2 when it did. I have purposed several other scenerios to this. One being Japan and you demissed them as light infantry without substantial mechanized support. You didn't take into the scene that Japan had a good Air Force and their troops were excellant in combat. The scene I purposed if the Manchurian situation had blown out to full scale war between USSR and Japan without the added attacks planned by Japan on rest of Asia and Pacific. And that Japan had diverted all her military excluding of her navy but including her naval air wing to Manchuria to fight the Russians what would have been to consquences for Russia fighting full scale war on 2 fronts some 8 to 10,000 miles apart?

And other scenerios i have put forward is that if Italy had remained neutral like that of Spain? How would the Battles in the Mediterrain been conducted and African Campaign without Italy and African Campaign would not have occured and Britain and her Commonwealth would not have had to divert Troops to Africa or the Asian Pacific region if you take into the above mentioned scenerio of Russia/Japan. Would Germany had declared war on Poland with one of her Allies remaining neutral and another busy fighting the Russians. Or again if Japan had obeyed the League of Nations and withdrawn all her Troops from Asia and decided to stay neutral and became less war like as trade for raw materials would have resumed via international trade with US Britian and Japan saw benefits in this at the time? And in same scenerio Russia didn't have a border dispute or war with Japan. How would this effect Germany? 2 of her Major Allies remaining neutral and Germany singled out in Europe for breaches of the Versailles Treaty.

There are many variables to what your thread is purposing Sys and I have thought about this and came up with other possible scenerios of my own besides the US not taking part in WW2 either in Europe or Asia Pacific. Question is Sys would Germany had been secure in herself to have launched attacks on Poland without Italy and Japan as Allies? If USSR had decided no they were not going to split Poland up with Germany but fight Germany right from 1939 if Germany had invaded Poland. Would have Germany engaged with War on Poland if this was the case? And if Germany had invaded Poland, USSR had retaliated and sent troops to aid Poland. England and France declaring War on Germany. And in this scenerio Germany faces war on 2 fronts. One from the East the other from the West in 1939/1940. With France and England crossing the Dutch French and Belguim borders and Russia attacking via Poland.

Your response draw from the situations that did occur Sys in some cases, but without the US in the mix. I am supposing a totally different idea and taking it a few steps further then you have done.


Another thing Sys Commonwealth Troops as you are making out were not all that undisciplined Malay and Indian Troops performed gallantly during WORLD WAR 2 as in the Malay Campaign and defended Singapore later. And Gurhka Troops were known for their tenacity in battle during both WW1 and WW2 and high discipline having been trained by the British Army. Along with the Bengal Lancers and other Indian Regiments. So becareful of demissing Commonwealth Troops so flipantly just because their origins were not exactly Anglo Saxon. Sikhs Hindis Tamils and other Indians made excellent Troops in the British Empire. South Africans New Zealanders Australians and Canadians also had native contingents in their forces as well Sys. For example the Maori Regiments from New Zealand who proved themselves both in WW1 and WW2. And if the above scenerios that I have envisaged had occured these troops would have certainly been used by England with France Russia attacking Germany in 1939/40 scene had played out in my post in paragraph 3. I think Sys you are purely looking at this as an American. Which means of course they are your views on this purposed events and they are neither right or wrong. Just how you envisage it. I on the other hand view it as an Australian and member of the Commonwealth have taken it further and put into it other possible outcomes. one thing Sys I thank you for putting this thread up. Gives me a chance to look at WW2 in another way and put my own ideas and conjectures across to you.


----------



## Emac44 (May 9, 2007)

plan_D said:


> I'm not saying that the U.S would move into the CBI - the U.S made little contribution to the CBI theatre as it was. My comment was made to point out that Britain would not need to bolster the CBI theatre as Japan would be fighting the U.S in the PTO just like what historically occured.
> 
> Great Britain alone did not have the resources to fight Germany; but Great Britain, her Empire and her Commonwealth did. Canada alone would have kept Britain supplied; you under-estimate the power of the British Commonwealth in the 1940s. There is no evidence that the British Commonwealth didn't have the industrial capacity to defeat Germany; it's all over-shadowed by the U.S industry. But the fact remains that Britain and her Commonwealth out-produced Germany.
> 
> ...



I will have to agree with Plan on this Sys in certain areas. The Empire was indeed made up of various people. And you have not taken into consideration that Canada Australia South Africa Malaya India New Zealand etc supplied not only raw material but men and equipment as well. Canada like Plan has said could of maintained England in Food Supplies Raw materials and other services and did so prior to the US joining WW2. And at this time the Italian Navy was virtually destroyed in the Med without the use of the USN to help and was achieved by the Royal Navy and her Commonwealth Navies. And it was British and Commonwealth Forces who defeated the Italians Germans and Vichy French in North Africa and Middle East. Even though the English and Commonwealth Nations had incured losses in Greece and Cyprus Campaigns. Even in this England insured her acess to OIL from the Middle East and kept the Suez Canal opened to the British and Commonwealth Fleets and Merchant Navies. And if the US had not joined in WW2 what makes you believe that the British didn't have the intelligence to conduct a war with the resource of all the Empire at her disposal? The English were not exactly short of brains during and prior to WW2 Sys and had developed weapons systems to their own apart from the US. And as some one has pointed out that England had the ability in science to develop weapons and possible other types of non conventional weapons. You seem to forget Frank Whittle had already developed jet engine technology and that the Gloster Meteor was in production and serving with the RAF in 1944/5. when exactly did the US develop jet aircraft that were beyond testing again Sys?

And as Plan has pointed out Sys the RAF had already delievered strikes into Germany with 1000 Bomber raids into Germany without the aid of the USAAF 8th Air Force. No one is saying that the US being in WW2 wasn't a valued service to the Allied Nations but do not under estimate the English or her then Empire which you seem to be doing Sys. It smacks or arrogance a little Sys


----------



## bomber (May 9, 2007)

"the U.S made little contribution to the CBI theatre as it was."

And what little contribution they did have backfired on the USA in the end.... 
Dare I say south Indo China.

The Lend / Lease scheme... I've a question

America staying out of WWII, did the lend/lease scheme drag it's ecomomy out of depression ?

Could it therefor be said that Europe saved America from economic disaster ? and geared up it's industry, making it more capable of responding following the Japanese attack ? and thus saved America from military disaster ?

Simon


----------



## bomber (May 9, 2007)

Emac44 said:


> Even though the English and Commonwealth Nations ......Even in this England insured her ..... The English were not exactly short of brains .....that England had the ability .....do not under estimate the English



I may be English.. but it's Britain and the British Empire.... 

Please do the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish a favour and include them...

Simon


----------



## syscom3 (May 9, 2007)

bomber said:


> "the U.S made little contribution to the CBI theatre as it was."
> 
> And what little contribution they did have backfired on the USA in the end....
> Dare I say south Indo China.



Irrelevant to this discussion. 



> America staying out of WWII, did the lend/lease scheme drag it's ecomomy out of depression ?



The thread is if the US stayed out of the war in Europe, not out of WW2. A Japanese attack would have caused the idustrial mobilization of the US to the same effect.


----------



## syscom3 (May 9, 2007)

plan_D said:


> I'm not saying that the U.S would move into the CBI - the U.S made little contribution to the CBI theatre as it was. My comment was made to point out that Britain would not need to bolster the CBI theatre as Japan would be fighting the U.S in the PTO just like what historically occured.



But you would still need to defend Burma and India untill mid 1943 when the US had finally mobilized. And those are forces that would not be available for use in the ETO/MTO, thus relieving pressure on the Germans



> Great Britain alone did not have the resources to fight Germany; but Great Britain, her Empire and her Commonwealth did. Canada alone would have kept Britain supplied; you under-estimate the power of the British Commonwealth in the 1940s. There is no evidence that the British Commonwealth didn't have the industrial capacity to defeat Germany; it's all over-shadowed by the U.S industry. But the fact remains that Britain and her Commonwealth out-produced Germany.



Only the UK had the large industrial centers of the empire. Canada's was quite small. Australia's and SA's was non existant. And as events proved, your economy was maxed out by 1943 with a general inability to expand with any large degree. 

I simply see no possibility of the British Empire to build the vast numbers of shipping neededto offset the U-boat losses and transport the colonial troops around the world, let alone equip them.

And that doesnt take into account building the armoured forces needed to defeat the Germans in any possible invasion. And then again, there was little possibility for the RAF to quadruple in size and maintain its high degree of proficency. You simply didnt have the manpower or undustrial resources to do it.



> British and Commonwealth men and ships would man the Atlantic convoys; that's a lot of men. The Med would have been won without the U.S additional strength - the U.S presence just made it easier.



I never thought the Germans could maintain a presence in Africa. 

But again, every sailor you need to man a ship is a man not going to be carrying a rifle or supporting air operations. You simply dont have enough men, period. 



> The RAF did a fine job throughout the entirety of the war, while losing a lot we maintained the pressure and more importantly the offensive. The RAF bombed by day and night; it was only the lack of effective equipment that prevented a better result. Unfortunately the British lacked the foresight to introduce the Mosquito in 1940. But even so, the British bombing campaign was extensive and the Luftwaffe was feeling it from the Eastern and Western fronts. The RAF hit Cologne before America was even in the war; is that deep enough into Germany for you?



It was the long range 8th AF fighters that brought the fight to the LW. Untill you had long range fighters to chase them from one part of the Reich to the other, then nothing was going to happen to the strength of the LW.

And it was the day/night bombing campaign that caused the German's major problems. Just bombing by night was not going to do much.



> That whole "dubious loyalties" is crap, sorry. The colonies and Commonwealth were going to fight; they continue to say now that they'd have fought on and on to victory under the Union Jack. There were plenty of bodies; which as I said would take time training and equipping but it would have been done.



You only have a certein ammount of time before the Germans are so advanced technically, that you cannot invade without taking devestating losses.

Lets face it, the Germans were superior in Tanks, AFV's, infantry weapons, and tactics. They were only defeated by superior allied numbers, most of which was contributed by the US



> Germany was not so far advanced over Britain in the most important area which is the air, so Britain and Germany would just be maintaining an equal balance.



Germany was quite advanced in a number of area's. 



> The British and her Commonwealth would maintain the losses a lot longer than the Germans - especially since they'd be fighting on the Eastern Front too. With the development of better strike platforms and better weapons themselves, the German industry would feel the payloads in ever increasing numbers with more devestating accuracy. The RAF would cripple the Axis industry ... and win the war.



But the RAF didnt cripple the Germans by themselves, it took several thousand US bombers and fighters to help you along. 

And without a credible daylight bombing campaign, the German day fighters could e redeployed to the eastern front and make its presence felt.



> In real terms, the Allies didn't need to collapse the Axis industry but it could have been done.



Not without the US providing the troops and material(s) to enable an allied win.

End result is still the same...... The Brits will never have the industrial or manpower capacity to invade Germany, Germany will never be able to invade Britain. And its a toss up whether Germany wins in the east, or Russia finally beats Germany through sheer attrition.


----------



## bomber (May 9, 2007)

Yeh you'd have mobilised but too little too late..... All of the Pacific including Hawawi would be Japanese.. and that includes Australia and New Zealand..

If you pull one thread it all comes undone.

The facts are the Sleeping giant wasn't actually asleep but busy making and selling goods to Britain... which you then diverted to your own armed forces even though Britain had orders placed.

Simon


----------



## syscom3 (May 9, 2007)

bomber said:


> Yeh you'd have mobilised but too little too late..... All of the Pacific including Hawawi would be Japanese.. and that includes Australia and New Zealand..



What? 



> The facts are the Sleeping giant wasn't actually asleep but busy making and selling goods to Britain... which you then diverted to your own armed forces even though Britain had orders placed.



You inventing more facts?

The US wasnt mobilized untill 1943 when the full weight of our shipyards and factories began to be felt. And the amazing thing is, the British economy maxed out around that time to, but the US economy never even showed signs of maxing out at all.


----------



## T4.H (May 9, 2007)

I said German. 
OK, perhaps not now any more. It is much more easy to win a war than to control a country, if the people in this country didn`t want (just think of IRAK).
And no one should forget, that Germany was (less or more) bancrupt before the war starts. If the war should have been startet 5 jears later, perhaps WWII would never begun, because the german economy would have been collapsed in between. How we Germans said: They throw out the money out of the window with both hands, to build up there army.

OK, I said German.

Why?

At the end of WWI Great Britain was (less or more) bankrupt.

Because before USA started into the war, Great Britain has had to pay for each screw (and so on), which was transfered from USA to Great Britain.

Between WWI and WWII Great Britain didn`t realy recover from WWI.

At begin of WWII it was the same, they had again to pay for each screw.
In "principle" Great Britain (and the rest of the commenwealth) financated the industrial recovery of the USA.

After short time, UK has lost the war on the continent. They were sitting on there island. OK, they controlled the surface of the atlantic ocean. And without the old american destroyers which they got?
Perhaps they would have lost even this part of the war.
The only thing UK could do were the bombing raids against germany. But these were (less or more) only night bombing raids against big or small towns but not against industrial facilities. What happens if you throw a bomb on a street between two big houses?
both houses were havily damaged or even destroyd. 
What happens when you throw a bomb in a big industrial hall?
It makes Booommm.
Some windows were blown out and you have a 10 m hole in the roof but the hall is still standing. And 48 h later the production was restartet.
To totally destroy an industrial facility you have to make a real big and precise bombing raid, this is impossible in night (OK, later with radar on board...). And it is impossible in night raids to totally bomb away a small railway, a railway station a bridge or a street.
Don`t forget, the biggest war production in germany was in the year 1944.
The night bombing raids were devastating the towns and terrorising the civilians. But it was less or more unimportant for earlier finishing the war.

So less or more after Norway, Dunkirk, greece, the british army and british airforce were "unimportant" for germany, they had to sit and to stay on there island and without the transports from USA, the UK would have to capitulate. 
The war in africa was not so important for WWII. If you compare this war with the war against russia it was unimportant for germany.

Russia has had another problem. Before the start of the war Stalin kills most of the generals and so on. Less or more they lost there whole army in the western part of russia at the begin of the russian war. They lost whole armys and most of there weapons. They had to transfer there factories from western russia to the eastern parts. But it is not so easy to restart the production of weapons, of trucks and so on. 

Without the PQ convoys to russia, the war against russia would have slowly ended in 1942 or 1943. 

I have asked some german soldiers, who fought in russia. 

They found british aircrafts, they found american aircrafts. They found rifles from Great Britain, ammunition from USA and UK, tinned food from... what do you think? And from where came the fuel?

And much more important, less or more all trucks came from USA and UK. It is nice, if you can produce many tanks.
But, if you can't transport any fuel, ammunition, food and so on...

Perhaps these convoys won the war against germany (of course not alone).


----------



## bomber (May 9, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> What?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No it's a case of you not being able to follow a conversation... 

First it's finally mobilzed, then it's mobilized and finally you say full weight...

What exactly do you mean by mobilise ?... the same as normal people or does it change depending upon the wind direction..

a. To assemble, prepare, or put into operation for or as if for war: mobilize troops; mobilize the snowplows.

b. To assemble, marshal, or coordinate for a purpose: mobilized the country's economic resources.

I understand it's not your first language but are you any clearer now on the English words you're using ?

Simon


----------



## RATHED (May 9, 2007)

Well , just my two cents on this subject.

Trying to make it short, it was American industrial capacity and Russian manpower that defeated Germany.

Let´s create a scenario: First : Japan never attacks Pearl Harbor . (I know some people said already that Pacific Teather has not to do with this discussion, but I strongly disagree.) With that, Germany never declares war on US, and the US never enters “open” war ( They were in fact already involved, which heavy deliveries of war material trough Lend Lease). 

Without the complete air and sea supremacy that was only granted by the involvement of America, the British would still have holded preatty well, but any invasion of Fortress Europa was completely doomed. (Ever heard of Dieppe? ) Sure, the Brits would probably win in Afrika, but that would be a ‘side” theater of operations, and I don´t believe they would even manage to get to Silicy ( Actually, I feel it is more probable that the Germans would capture Malta). Remember that without the war turning so bad to Italy as it did in real life, Mussolini would probably retain power. Italy would still be fighting the Brits much longer than it did in real life. It has been stated here that the Brits were already in the offensive when 42 started. Truth, but I don´t believe that this would be a big, decisive and winning offensive without US involvement. For example the air offensive was mild and almost tatic in nature and did not really had a strategic effect like from 43 on.

The continent would be strongly in German hands, and the outcome of the conflict would be dependent on the results of the battles in Russia. It is impossible to predict exactly, but I don´t thing that the Soviet Union alone would managed to defeat the germans all the way to Berlin. Most likely, the war would drag on with heavy losses on both sides. 

Consider that many factors that helped the Soviets would be absent, or would loose force: 1 – The enormous amount of war material delivered by US and England would be, at least, considerably small than it was. Some said that they would remain the same , trough Lend Lease. I disagree. With allowed American arming itself AND delivering weapon to the soviets at the same time was the fact that America was in a state of war. Without that, the economy would have other priorities also, and the ammount of material shipped to the soviets would inevitabily be smaller. As it has also been pointed , all the transport convoys would be be british, further complicating thinks… 2 – Without the threat of immediate invasion many german troops on occupation duty not only in France but also in Norway and the Balkans could had been used. 3 – The heavy effort to fight allied aerial bombing, demanding the use not only of thousands of fighters , but also thousand of AAA guns and crews would be sigficant smaller, again freeing german resources to the east front. Plus, the damage made would also be smaller, and Nazi industrial production would benefit.

It is open to discussion, but my bet is that the germans would at some point occupy both Moscou and/or the Caucasus ( with Stalingrad) but Russian defenses would not crumble and you would have a draw. 

Not to mention that whit Japan not involved in fighting US, they are still a credible force against the eastern Russian flank, further complicating soviet ability to move resources.

By 1947 we would be in the middle of hard sea and air battles in West Europe, but most of the focus would be on the ground in the east front. At some point in time the germans would get nukes and there is a good probability they would use them against Soviet Union…


----------



## syscom3 (May 9, 2007)

RATHED said:


> Well , just my two cents on this subject.
> 
> Trying to make it short, it was American industrial capacity and Russian manpower that defeated Germany.
> 
> …



Thats a good way of putting it.

Take out the US industrial output, then Germany has a better than 50-50 chance of winning.


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2007)

The CBI theatre would be an exact replica of the real events; which relieves troops in 1945 as the war with Germany would still be ongoing. 

Canada provided thousands of aircraft, tanks and trucks to the Allied war effort - their industry was not huge, but more than capable of expansion. And India, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa all provided resources, men and machine to the war effort. 
The British Empire had more men than the U.S - that's a simple fact. So, man power was not to be a problem. You're thinking of what did happen, rather than what could have happened. The U.S provided all these men and material - so Britain didn't have to; it doesn't mean Britain didn't have the people at its disposal. 
On top of that, the Soviet Union would still be pressurising the German forces in the East. And the RAF was in a good position for offensives during 1943 - and I say again, we bombed by day and night. 

The fact is; a Soviet and British alliance had more industrial capacity than Germany and had more men. In the war of attrition - they'd lose and that's what it became.

Germany weren't that far advanced; 1945 - Britain had the Centurion; equal to any German AFV. We had fighters equal to any of the Luftwaffe; tactical bombers that were superior; and strategic bombers that were far superior. Our electronics were always one step ahead. Germany was never going to have a massive technical advantage.

The RAF if needed to, would have eventually been sending escorted heavy raids by day to Germany - but we didn't need to, 'cos America was doing it.


----------



## Emac44 (May 10, 2007)

plan_D said:


> The CBI theatre would be an exact replica of the real events; which relieves troops in 1945 as the war with Germany would still be ongoing.
> 
> Canada provided thousands of aircraft, tanks and trucks to the Allied war effort - their industry was not huge, but more than capable of expansion. And India, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa all provided resources, men and machine to the war effort.
> The British Empire had more men than the U.S - that's a simple fact. So, man power was not to be a problem. You're thinking of what did happen, rather than what could have happened. The U.S provided all these men and material - so Britain didn't have to; it doesn't mean Britain didn't have the people at its disposal.
> ...



And also Plan the fact that the English including Scots Irish and Welsh had already cracked the Enigma Codes of the German Army Navy and Luftwaffe and its civilian radio traffic as well. England had an advantage of knowing where Germany would deploy its forces. And this information would have been passed onto the USSR instead of the USA. Also the use of Radar would have been given to the USSR instead of the USA for its Naval Fleets. 

And what I find amazing is some consider that the RAF Bomber Command made no significant contribution to the defeat of Germany during WW2. One forum chatter even suggested that Germany's overall production increased in 1944. See the year 1944 and he singled out the RAF as being non productive. If I remember correctly the USAAF 8th AirForce was conducting daylight raids into Germany at this time and their contribution would have be ineffective going by the increase of German War Production. These people think the Norden Bomb sight was the bloody bee knees in targetting during WW2. It bloody well wasn't and was more ineffective during daylight mission then what the RAF was using at night. It appears some have forgotten the advent of the Path Finder Squadrons from Bomber Command and were used effectively during WW2 at night. We might take this opportunity to remind our US cousins of the severe losses incured by the USAAF 8th Air Force on their bomber crews prior to the introduction of Long Range Fighter Escorts Mustangs and these losses still occured to USAAF Bomber Crews despite the fighter escorts etc. And without the British Merlin Engine the Mustang would have been nothing more than a low level fighter bomber and as such the Americans would have continued with heavy losses. It wasn't the RAF who had problems supplying Bomber Crews and Aircraft and transporting the same across the Atlantic during WW2 and production levels as aircraft like the Lancaster Short Sterling and Halifax were being produced locally mostly in England and that Bomber Crews were volunteering from all over the Commonwealth and Great Britian. 

As for countries like Australia Sys the production of raw materials increased during WW2 to supply the Nation and the Commonwealth in the War Effort. You obviously think the USA was the only industrialized nation in the world and your comments about the Commonwealth being maxed out are bizzare if not a little insulting. Production of steel iron ore coal food material for war increased in this country 3 years before the USA ever set foot in WW2 And same as did what occured in Canada South Africa and Rhodesia Also the production of oil rubber tin and other valuable resources increased. Sys you obviously think the British Empire was helpless and hapless without the USA prior to WW2 and during the early stages of WW2. 

I think this thread has gone from recriminations about the contributions of Great Britian and her Commonwealth and is turning into the same old bullshit with a different label once more. No one wins wars without the USA involved the usual crap that insults other nations again. 

You want to know who defeated the Germans. Well it was the USSR who defeated the Germans during WW2 with of course the help she received from all Allied Nations. No way would Germany had prevailed against Russia. They the Germans made the same mistake at the gates of Moscow as Napoleon did in the war of 1812. And it was the USSR who pushed the Germans all the way back to Berlin and took Berlin without the assistence of the US or Great Britian or the rest of the Allied Nations. And it was not until June 6th 1944 D Day that the 2nd front Stalin had been asking for actually took place. It is my belief even if D Day had not occured it would have made no difference to the USSR and same result would have occured with or without the USA being involved in WW2. 

And it appears our US cousins still think the German Army was all armed on the Eastern Front with up to date mechanized armour and regiments and supply was all mechanized. Simple cases show the the Vaunted Tiger and Panther Tanks being used by the Germans in some cases were ineffective and were prone to mechanical failure and that the Germans had failed to recognise the Feared Russian Winter that froze engine lubricants in the crank case of engines. And also the Allies to the Germans like Romainians Italians etc were under armed and were undisciplined on the flanks of the vaunted German Army. And in more than one case horse and cart transport was still being used by the German Army for supply of its troops on the Eastern Front. Quiet frankly I dispair with these blatant over sights about the German Military in Russia. By members in this forum and from what one hears from others who belittle the USSRs efforts in WW2 and belittle the efforts of the UK and her Commonwealth. 

And before you claim Sys that Japan would have interferred with the Commonwealth Nations in the Asia Pacific Regions. Well in accordance with this thread there would have been no Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbour or Philippines Malaya or Singapore or Dutch East Indies as neither Japan or US would have been involved in the War. It wasn't until December 7th 1941 that Japan came involved and consquently the US and Germany and Italy declaring war on US one to 2 days later.

And I believe Sys is over estimating that Germany had a better than 50 50 chance of winning WW2 without the US being in WW2. I wouldn't even give them a rating of that high as their own productions were dismal and that they rushed into production weapons that had not even been trialled in near combat conditions. As for example Tiger Panther and the Elephant Assault Tanks proved at times to be ineffective in Russian Territory and the bloody things broke down on more then on a few occassions. As for their Air Force they couldn't even supply their men trapped in Stalingrad and sustain those troops of Paulus 6th Army. Their aircraft fighters most capable were also limited to range and their heaviest bombers in use were limited not only by range bombing carrying but also engines as they were restricted to 2 engines in most cases. Their Stuka dive bombers were easy targets to any fighter British or Russian. 

And it was the British who developed specialized attacks on Germany during WW2 using her 4 engined heavy bombers and again it was the British who developed anti submarine warfare to a higher degree with her Royal Navy Fleets in the Atlantic And anti submarine long ranged aircraft using another British invention called RADAR which equiped RAF Coastal Command AirCraft Squadrons and something the British would not have shared with the US but would have shared with the USSR instead. Another of those things would have been any advancement of Nuclear Power or Jet Air Craft technology and such simple things later as Jet Air Craft Ejection Seats for aeroplanes would not have been shared with the USA either Plan. Just some of the little things Plan that Sys ignores or belittles about the British ability to wage a proper war against Germany


----------



## RATHED (May 10, 2007)

Hi Emac and PlanD. Not that I don´t agree with some of the things you said, but I will repeat to you the claim PlanD made: I believe you are “thinking of what did happen, rather than what could have happened.” .

You are completing forgeting the cumulative effect the pressure of so many enemies had on Germany. Take out the US out of equation and they would have done better, while England would be under more pressure than it was in “our” world, and would have done worse. That extends to weapons development. For example, the Tiger “might’ ( and that is all we can say, since we are speculating here) been developed in a better way. The british bomber force would not be so strong or competent, since the LW would have a bigger offensive strength and UK would have to give a bigger priority to fighter and defensive measures than it did. And so on, and so on... The point to emphasize here is the cumulative effect. I could point literally THOUSANDS of small thing the allies had going for them that would be absent if it was not for American involvement.

That all said, let me make clear that UK would still be very important, and yeah , they would probably even be more advanced in technology. But they would NOT have a major ground front to fight in, at least not until Russia had seriously depleted Nazi capability. That is because amphibious landings, be in Norway, the Balkans, Italy or France, would be impossible and doomed if it was not for the complete air and sea superiority. And the UK would not have obtained that for many years, if it was not for American involvement. And without a serious possibility of having a two front GROUND war, Germany would manage its resources better. 

In a sea and air war the Brits would cause a lot of damage to Germany. But even if it was important, it would never be enough to win the war by itself. Bottom line, you also need the boots on the ground to close the deal.

Would the German outright win? Of course not! Did America “saved” the UK? Of course not! What I believe is that the Nazis would manage to retain control in western Europa despite british efforts to the contrary, and the war would drag and be decided in the east. It is impossible to say what would be the exact outcome, maybe even an cease-fire or a decades long conflict… By the way, consider that I am NOT American.


----------



## syscom3 (May 10, 2007)

plan_D said:


> The CBI theatre would be an exact replica of the real events; which relieves troops in 1945 as the war with Germany would still be ongoing.



Agrre'd. But by the time they can go to Europe, the war has been decided for Russia or Germany.



> Canada provided thousands of aircraft, tanks and trucks to the Allied war effort - their industry was not huge, but more than capable of expansion. And India, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa all provided resources, men and machine to the war effort.



You need 100's of thousands of trucks, 10's of thousands of aircraft and thousands of ships. Australia, SA and Canada didnt have the resources to do it. Plus much of the production from Australia would be going to support its own forces in the Pacific.



> The British Empire had more men than the U.S - that's a simple fact. So, man power was not to be a problem. You're thinking of what did happen, rather than what could have happened. The U.S provided all these men and material - so Britain didn't have to; it doesn't mean Britain didn't have the people at its disposal.



Incorrect. You are counting the vast hordes of colonial people who were illiterate and could not be expected to perform to the high standards needed to defeat Germany.



> On top of that, the Soviet Union would still be pressurising the German forces in the East. And the RAF was in a good position for offensives during 1943 - and I say again, we bombed by day and night.



And without the US and thus the Brits to worry about, more men and material can be moved to the eastern front.



> The fact is; a Soviet and British alliance had more industrial capacity than Germany and had more men. In the war of attrition - they'd lose and that's what it became.



Britain alone didnt have the industrial might to defeat Germany. Russia had lots of industrial power, but squandered lots of it because of the conditions it had to fight in.



> Germany weren't that far advanced; 1945 - Britain had the Centurion; equal to any German AFV. We had fighters equal to any of the Luftwaffe; tactical bombers that were superior; and strategic bombers that were far superior. Our electronics were always one step ahead. Germany was never going to have a massive technical advantage.



Germany's tanks and AFV's were superior right unto the last few months of the war (63 out of 68 months is quite impressive). And if the US hadnt enabled the Brits to invade Normandy in 1944, none of your centurion tanks would see combat in numbers. 

Fighters equal to the LW? yes, but you need magnitudes better than, or in numbers far in excess of the LW to destroy it. 



> The RAF if needed to, would have eventually been sending escorted heavy raids by day to Germany - but we didn't need to, 'cos America was doing it.



Only one problem with that, you dont have the resources to do it by day AND night. Forget that the US had 2500 heavy bombers, and another 4000 tactical bombers and fighters to provide for the fight? I dont think the brits had the resources to expand beyond what you already had.

The facts are clear. Britain had to raise an army and navy large enough to defeat Germany by middle 1945. You simpky didnt have the mapower, resources and time needed to do it.

By early 1945, we can be sure of one of the following:
1) Germany and Russia had fought themsleves to a draw. Germany is still firmly in place in Europe.
2) Germany beats Russia in 1943, and again, Germany not only controls Europe, but is in a position to threaten the middle east.
3) Russia beats germany and controls Europe.


----------



## RATHED (May 10, 2007)

Well , I n my opinion, in creating this scenario we can´t even consider the possibility of Japan attacking Pearl Harbor and the US fighting only in the Pacific. It is not credible at all. Either they stay out of the war or they would fight it in both theaters. FDR wanted to get in to the war anyway, Pearl Harbor was just what finally decided it. Yeah, I know the germans declared war first , but that is just a tecnacality


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 10, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Incorrect. You are counting the vast hordes of colonial people who were illiterate and could not be expected to perform to the high standards needed to defeat Germany.



That is a bit far fetched I think. You dont have to be smart to follow orders and have a fighting spirit.


----------



## syscom3 (May 10, 2007)

RATHED said:


> Well , I n my opinion, in creating this scenario we can´t even consider the possibility of Japan attacking Pearl Harbor and the US fighting only in the Pacific. It is not credible at all. Either they stay out of the war or they would fight it in both theaters. FDR wanted to get in to the war anyway, Pearl Harbor was just what finally decided it. Yeah, I know the germans declared war first , but that is just a tecnacality



There was almost a week difference between declaring the war. And untill Germany declared war, there was less than unanomous support for declaring war on Germany.

And Japan was going to declare war on the US regardless of what germany was going to do.


----------



## syscom3 (May 10, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is a bit far fetched I think. You dont have to be smart to follow orders and have a fighting spirit.



You need literate people to maintain the machines, and fly the planes. And unless you just want to use the bodies as cannon fodder, then having them smart enough to be able to fight with some probability of defeating the GA is a distinct advantage.


----------



## RATHED (May 10, 2007)

Something that people are forgeting: Well , we all agree that the most important ground front would be on Russia. Let´s say the soviets are finally wining, and begin to pushing back the germans. We still don´t have a ground front in France, nor the possibility of one in the short term. Anyone really believe the Brits would keep supporting the soviets when they started pouring in to Europa? 

I know that Churchill said he would make partners even with the Devil against Hitller, but this is BS. In real life it would come down to “Real Politikcs”. The Brits ( and the US, even if it was out of the war) did not wanted a nazified continental Europa, but they did not wanted a communist one either.

Most likely, the support would be reduced as soon as it becomes clear that western Europa is whitin the grasp of Stalin. The political and strategic aim for the Brits would be to keep the Russians strong enough to keep Germany occupied and depleted, but not enough to defeat it completely, in the hope the England would at some point grow strong enough or would get the support of the US to “liberate” western Europe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 10, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> You need literate people to maintain the machines, and fly the planes. And unless you just want to use the bodies as cannon fodder, then having them smart enough to be able to fight with some probability of defeating the GA is a distinct advantage.



You obviously have not served in the military then...


----------



## RATHED (May 10, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> There was almost a week difference between declaring the war. And untill Germany declared war, there was less than unanomous support for declaring war on Germany.
> 
> And Japan was going to declare war on the US regardless of what germany was going to do.



This a whole other discussion, I don´t wanna get in to now. We will just disagree on that. In my scenario, I will always consider that Pearl Harbor never happened.


----------



## rogthedodge (May 10, 2007)

In short yes, but the US couldn't have won it without the UK, the UK couldn't have won it without the Empire or the Poles etc etc.

Most Brits I know wouldn't dispute the US's help was decisive, it's the post-war usuary terms of economic help and the more-recent crowing that tends to inflame opinions


----------



## Emac44 (May 11, 2007)

I like that Sys considers vast amounts of people in the Commonwealth were iliterate. By any standard this is a high over stating his ignorance of the British Empire. Who educated most Dominion Indigenous Populations far more than any Colonial or Empire Powers had done before. And how long have you thought Australians New Zealanders Canadians South Africans Malays Singaporeans etc are dumb as dog **** Sys? And according to your thread the US wasn't in the War WHICH MEANS NEITHER WAS JAPAN THAT BROUGHT THE USA INTO THE WAR WHEN IT ATTACKED PEARK HARBOUR AND PHILIPPINES. And as soon as Japan had attacked the USA and her overseas possessions less that in a 48 hours Germany and Italy declared war on the US. You are concentrating on this being a European War. Which it wasn't after December 1941 when it became Global. And with Japan not part of this scenerio your opinions of the Commonwealth supplying Great Britian is based on that Japan was in WW2 after December 1941. Which wouldn't have been the case as Japan would not have been involved as according to you US was NOT INVOLVED AND HENCE NEITHER WAS JAPAN


And Sys who are you to consider PEOPLE OF THE EMPIRE WERE AS DUMB AS DOG ****. When the British set about educating the natives of the EMPIRE NATIONS unlike the France Belguim and Holland at the same time.

I am sorry but I am taking exception to these overtures of people who were natives in the Commonwealth and the British Empire from Sys. it has gone to sheer arrogance in my opinion


----------



## lesofprimus (May 11, 2007)

Oh Jesus...


----------



## syscom3 (May 11, 2007)

Emac44 said:


> I like that Sys considers vast amounts of people in the Commonwealth were iliterate.



Vast numbers of the colonial people were illiterate, such as the populations in India, Nigeria, etc.



> And how long have you thought Australians New Zealanders Canadians South Africans Malays Singaporeans etc are dumb as dog **** Sys?



I never considered them to be illiterate, as most were populated by whites who did have an educational adavantage over the other colonial peoples



> And according to your thread the US wasn't in the War WHICH MEANS NEITHER WAS JAPAN THAT BROUGHT THE USA INTO THE WAR WHEN IT ATTACKED PEARK HARBOUR AND PHILIPPINES.



Japan was going to attack the US and others regardless of what Germany was going to do. I've always stated in this thread that this war was going to have the US at war with Japan, but not Germany.



> And as soon as Japan had attacked the USA and her overseas possessions less that in a 48 hours Germany and Italy declared war on the US. You are concentrating on this being a European War. Which it wasn't after December 1941 when it became Global.



It was Germany declaring war on the US, that gave us the excuse to declare war on them. If Germany had stayed on the sidelines after Dec 7th, then there is every indication the US would have stayed out of the European war. 



> And with Japan not part of this scenerio your opinions of the Commonwealth supplying Great Britian is based on that Japan was in WW2 after December 1941. Which wouldn't have been the case as Japan would not have been involved as according to you US was NOT INVOLVED AND HENCE NEITHER WAS JAPAN



Go back to the start of the thread and quite me where I said that the US would stay out of the war in the pacific.



> And Sys who are you to consider PEOPLE OF THE EMPIRE WERE AS DUMB AS DOG ****. When the British set about educating the natives of the EMPIRE NATIONS unlike the France Belguim and Holland at the same time.



But why was there huge illiteracy problems in more than a few countries after decolonization? And I am not reffering to ANZAC, or Canada.

My point is that just because Britain had a few hundred million subjects in India, it didnt mean that there was a vast pool of manpower to tap to be thrust into a war that was beginning to be shown to be quite a technical affair to be run.



> I am sorry but I am taking exception to these overtures of people who were natives in the Commonwealth and the British Empire from Sys. it has gone to sheer arrogance in my opinion



Unfortunatly, facts can be disheartening to people.

It still stands, and noone has proven me wrong......

The UK did not have the industrial or manpower capacity to defeat Germany on its own. Only Russia did.

End result is (mainland) Europe speaking German or Russian.


----------



## Bernhart (May 11, 2007)

getting the feeling that sys loves POing people. At least hope its that and he isn't what his post make him seem to be.


----------



## syscom3 (May 11, 2007)

Bernhart said:


> getting the feeling that sys loves POing people. At least hope its that and he isn't what his post make him seem to be.



PO'ing people?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 11, 2007)

Pissing off people....


----------



## lesofprimus (May 11, 2007)

> getting the feeling that sys loves POing people. At least hope its that and he isn't what his post make him seem to be.


Sys has excelled in the art of pissing members off since his inception into our midst 2 years ago... I would never expect, or want him to, change in any way...


----------



## syscom3 (May 11, 2007)

You have to have a thick skin to last here in this forum.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 11, 2007)

God, I love u man...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2007)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2007)

As long as he does not turn into a (and I never have thought he would) Lunatic, sys will be sys.


----------



## syscom3 (May 12, 2007)

the people who usually get pissed off are the ones who discover they were wrong.

Like I was about the B24 (  )

Now back to business.

Since the US military power in the MTO wasn't felt untill 1943, could Germany turn around its fortunes in the east with Russia during this year? Would some extra divisions and LW units from Italy (and Germany itself) make enough of a difference?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2007)

I think Germany could have defeated Russia and turned it around with the right decisions. Hitler made all the wrong decisions. He should have let his commanders do the fighting and realized that he is not a tactician and is very lousy at his attempts at doing so.

Politicians will not win a war, especially when they let there misguided ideas lead the way and influence there decisions.


----------



## machine shop tom (May 12, 2007)

"It was Germany declaring war on the US, that gave us the excuse to declare war on them. If Germany had stayed on the sidelines after Dec 7th, then there is every indication the US would have stayed out of the European war."

I disagree. There was actually every indication that the U.S. going to war with Germany was inevitable. The U.S/United Kingdom ties were too strong, as were Churchill and Roosevelt's. The U.S. was defacto arming the Brits from early on and Germany almost precipitated war by having the BB Texas in a U-boats sights. With U-boats sinking ships on both sides of the Atlantic and in the Caribbean (and, indeed in the Gulf of Mexico), and with Britain's increasingly bad situation, public outcry would have increased until war was declared.

tom


----------



## syscom3 (May 12, 2007)

machine shop tom said:


> "It was Germany declaring war on the US, that gave us the excuse to declare war on them. If Germany had stayed on the sidelines after Dec 7th, then there is every indication the US would have stayed out of the European war."
> 
> I disagree. There was actually every indication that the U.S. going to war with Germany was inevitable. The U.S/United Kingdom ties were too strong, as were Churchill and Roosevelt's. The U.S. was defacto arming the Brits from early on and Germany almost precipitated war by having the BB Texas in a U-boats sights. With U-boats sinking ships on both sides of the Atlantic and in the Caribbean (and, indeed in the Gulf of Mexico), and with Britain's increasingly bad situation, public outcry would have increased until war was declared.
> 
> tom



You're forgetting that even on the eve of Pearl harbor, the isolationist crowd was still quite strong. And even on the evening of Dec 7th, there were still large numbers of congressman and senators that still hoped we would not be drawn into the European conflict.

And your also forgetting that the purpose of this thread is to show that without the US getting involved, then "contiental" Europe would be speaking German or Russian.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 12, 2007)

May have to agree with Tom, but the one thing that still gets me is whether or not Hitler wanted to pull the US into the fray.... I think he was gobbled up in his power and thought himself/Germany undefeatable....

Why else would he have attacked Russia???

As for the whole "No USA would Germany beat USSR?" gimmick, they probably stood a better chance of it without US involvement of any sort... With some better advice to Hitler and letting Guderian do what he always wanted to do, it probably would have happened.... 

Im pretty sure that Stalingrad would have fallen... Thats alot of extra machines and men that the Germans could have utilized instead of sitting on some farmland in France... If there werent hundreds and hundred and thousands of British and American bombers flying over the Ruhr and Berlin, where would the large portion of those Luftwaffe aircraft go to....

Mother Russia, supporting the Panzers...


----------



## lesofprimus (May 12, 2007)

As to syscoms very detailed question "German or Russian", my mind believes that in occupied France, Germans impregnate Frenchies, have little braut eating blonde knights speaking German like their Daddys and their pals, Mayors and garbage collectors.... I would also assume that these little blonde German-Frenchies would also hang out/be babysitted etc etc by his mothers grandparents who speak only French....

Bi-lingual German teenagers running across Belgium and France, breeding with German speaking French/German maidens with hairy armpits....

German speaking children......

German takes over French by being breeded out through generations... I can buy that....


----------



## machine shop tom (May 12, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> You're forgetting that even on the eve of Pearl harbor, the isolationist crowd was still quite strong. And even on the evening of Dec 7th, there were still large numbers of congressman and senators that still hoped we would not be drawn into the European conflict.
> 
> And your also forgetting that the purpose of this thread is to show that without the US getting involved, then "contiental" Europe would be speaking German or Russian.



U.S involvement in WWII was inevitable on both fronts. 

Had Britain been seen on the brink of falling (as it was in 1942 due to the success of the U-boats) Roosevelt would have seen war declared on Germany regardless of isolationist crowd. 

I'm not forgetting the purpose of this thread. It was inevitable that the U.S. would get involved and have an impact of the lanquage spoken in Europe. The sad fact is that a large portion of Europe trade one dictator for another.

BTW, its "contintental" not "contiental".

tom


----------



## lesofprimus (May 12, 2007)

I dont think Roosevelt would have gotten the US in a shooting War with Germany without the approval of the isolationists...


> It was inevitable that the U.S. would get involved and have an impact of the lanquage spoken in Europe.


Hmmm, dont have much faith in that Tom... 
*AND FOR THE FU*KIN RECORD, ITS CONTINENTAL....* Ur both meatballs...


----------



## machine shop tom (May 12, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> *AND FOR THE FU*KIN RECORD, ITS CONTINENTAL....* Ur both meatballs...



Damn, I HATE it when I find out I'm not perfect!!

 

tom


----------



## lesofprimus (May 12, 2007)

Hehe...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> As to syscoms very detailed question "German or Russian", my mind believes that in occupied France, Germans impregnate Frenchies, have little braut eating blonde knights speaking German like their Daddys and their pals, Mayors and garbage collectors.... I would also assume that these little blonde German-Frenchies would also hang out/be babysitted etc etc by his mothers grandparents who speak only French....
> 
> Bi-lingual German teenagers running across Belgium and France, breeding with German speaking French/German maidens with hairy armpits....
> 
> ...



I am a firm believer that if a World War ever breaks out again in Europe, the loser has to keep France.


----------



## syscom3 (May 12, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am a firm believer that if a World War ever breaks out again in Europe, the loser has to keep France.


----------



## machine shop tom (May 12, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am a firm believer that if a World War ever breaks out again in Europe, the loser has to keep France.



Make that the WINNER has to take France and I guarantee there will be no more wars in Europe.

"We win! Wait, WE get France? Never mind, YOU win............."


tom


----------



## Marcel (May 12, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am a firm believer that if a World War ever breaks out again in Europe, the loser has to keep France.



I hope the french win then..


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 12, 2007)

a paradox.


----------



## Soren (May 12, 2007)

I'm with Les on this, although not about the armpit part


----------



## rogthedodge (May 15, 2007)

Before we all have a 'let's slag off the French'-fest (always popular).

Let's not forget there was also fraternisation from the Dutch and others too - there are reports of Dutch ladies cooking etc for Luftwaffe pliots, both the Dutch and the Danes raised SS divisions etc.

Churchill niaively expected much from the occupied populations but many of them recognised the realities of the situation and got on with the occupiers. Hence SOE to stir it up a bit!

There were of course brave minorities in all european countries who did resist

Nothing to guarantee that the UK population wouldn't have done the same (very little resistance in Jersey!) - although after the mustard gas treatment and the auxilliary groups designed to spread terror / increase reprisals by the Germans the Brits may have resisted longer / more vigourously.

Chiurchill was an evil sod and his plans were designed to provoke retaliation against his own people and thus resistance.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2007)

_"Agrre'd. But by the time they can go to Europe, the war has been decided for Russia or Germany."_

You seem 100% sure of this; if anything the war certainly would not have been decided by 1945 - it would be dragging on.

_"You need 100's of thousands of trucks, 10's of thousands of aircraft and thousands of ships. Australia, SA and Canada didnt have the resources to do it. Plus much of the production from Australia would be going to support its own forces in the Pacific."_

Britain and her Commonwealth provided tens of thousands of aircraft; and hundreds of thousands of trucks for the war effort. South Africa, Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand and Great Britain collectively had enough industrial capacity to run Germany into the ground.
If the U.S had never geared up for war; we wouldn't be saying the U.S had the industrial might or army because prior to World War II - it was pretty pathetic. 

And syscom, do a little research and tell me how many U.S citizens were illiterate in 1941 - I'll give you a hint; it's around 40%. But yet the U.S managed to train and deployed hundreds of thousands of troops to the war effort ... how did they do this? The idea that the Commonwealth was, apparently, mostly illiterate so they can't fight is laughable. 
Nevertheless; we need not compare the industrial capacity and manpower to the U.S - you compare to Germany. Where the British Commonwealth out-numbered and out-produced Germany. 

_"Germany's tanks and AFV's were superior right unto the last few months of the war (63 out of 68 months is quite impressive). And if the US hadnt enabled the Brits to invade Normandy in 1944, none of your centurion tanks would see combat in numbers."_

I think you should accept that you don't know squat about the AFVs of World War II - in both 1939 and 1940; plus most of 1941 German AFVs were poor at best. Faced up against the British Maltida they were in deep trouble ...and against the Soviet T-34! It was only until the Pz.Kpfw IV F/2 came along and the L/60 armed Pz.Kpfw III arrived that German armour began to pick up. When the Pz.Kpfw VI E arrived ... three years after the war started ...German AFVs became the bench-mark. 

Great Britain was out-producing Germany in fighters; combined the VVS and RAF numbers and you'll see Germany are heavily inferior numbers wise in a fighter force. Plus the fact; Britain was on the offensive and Germany wasn't stopping it - even before the U.S came along. 

Syscom; THE RAF WAS BOMBING BY DAY AND NIGHT!

It may not have been with the numbers the USAAF deployed - but given the better tactics and better weapons; Britain could have been destroying the vital German targets instead of just plastering it - like the USAAF did. Operation _Crossbow[/b] being a perfect example of American over-kill in the air offensive. The 2nd TAF destroyed more Noball sites than the U.S 9th Air Force for far less sorties ... the only force to destroy more Noball sites was the U.S 8th Air Force with a hell of a lot more effort and sortie numbers.

The facts are clear; Britain had a navy large enough to defeat the Kriegsmarine in 1939 all the way through 1945. The only problem the Royal Navy encountered was when fighting the Italian, Japanese and German but since the U.S is still fighting the Japanese navy then Britain is fine handling the German and Italian on its own._


----------



## syscom3 (May 17, 2007)

plan_D said:


> _"Agrre'd. But by the time they can go to Europe, the war has been decided for Russia or Germany."_
> 
> You seem 100% sure of this; if anything the war certainly would not have been decided by 1945 - it would be dragging on.



By the middle of 1944, the war would have been decided in the east, with either Germany or Russia winning, or even a truce. Theres nothing the Commonwealth could do to effect that outcome, unless Stalin allowed you to join in on the fighting in the east.



> Britain and her Commonwealth provided tens of thousands of aircraft; and hundreds of thousands of trucks for the war effort. South Africa, Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand and Great Britain collectively had enough industrial capacity to run Germany into the ground.



Your war economy had maxed out in 1943. Thats a fact. There was nothing the Commonwealth could do about it. Now lets hear about all the big industrial plants, steel mills and massive aircraft factories that existed in Australia, Canada, India and SA. Hardly any.



> If the U.S had never geared up for war; we wouldn't be saying the U.S had the industrial might or army because prior to World War II - it was pretty pathetic.



You show a lack of understanding for the economic aspects or warfare. Prior to the US getting in the war, we had lots of economic potential and reserve capacity. Thats what the Germans and Japanese didnt quite understand. Plus we had the manpower available to not only raise large armies and navies, but also to have enough people at home to run the factories and farms.



> And syscom, do a little research and tell me how many U.S citizens were illiterate in 1941 - I'll give you a hint; it's around 40%. But yet the U.S managed to train and deployed hundreds of thousands of troops to the war effort ... how did they do this? The idea that the Commonwealth was, apparently, mostly illiterate so they can't fight is laughable.



So all these people in the colonies in Africa and India were educated enough to jump right in to fight a modern war? Most of them had never ridden in a car, let alone being shown how to maintain one.



> Nevertheless; we need not compare the industrial capacity and manpower to the U.S - you compare to Germany. Where the British Commonwealth out-numbered and out-produced Germany.



And yet your production was well short of the production needed to build the air forces, supply the divisions and construct the navies needed to do the job. It was US production and manpower that made it possible for the allies to win. After all, if it was all that great, why did we have to give you the airplanes, ships and supply the troops?

No US in the European war, no allied victory.



> I think you should accept that you don't know squat about the AFVs of World War II - in both 1939 and 1940; plus most of 1941 German AFVs were poor at best. Faced up against the British Maltida they were in deep trouble ...and against the Soviet T-34! It was only until the Pz.Kpfw IV F/2 came along and the L/60 armed Pz.Kpfw III arrived that German armour began to pick up. When the Pz.Kpfw VI E arrived ... three years after the war started ...German AFVs became the bench-mark.



I think its been fairly well proven by others that the Panther and Tiger were quite superior to their US/UK counterparts. And they were only defeated in the long run by superior US production.



> Great Britain was out-producing Germany in fighters; combined the VVS and RAF numbers and you'll see Germany are heavily inferior numbers wise in a fighter force. Plus the fact; Britain was on the offensive and Germany wasn't stopping it - even before the U.S came along.



Unfortunatly, your fighters didnt have the range necessary to get to where the LW was flying over. Namely Germany. 



> Syscom;THE RAF WAS BOMBING BY DAY AND NIGHT



Face it, Bomber Command was doing a great job at night, but it was not a credible threat at all during the day. It didnt do the deep penetration missions into Germany during the day untill well after the USAAF had cleared the skys of the LW. BC did a better job of attacking Germany's industries at night, but it was the USAAF that went in deep during the day and destroyed the LW.



> It may not have been with the numbers the USAAF deployed - but given the better tactics and better weapons; Britain could have been destroying the vital German targets instead of just plastering it - like the USAAF did. Operation _Crossbow[/b] being a perfect example of American over-kill in the air offensive. The 2nd TAF destroyed more Noball sites than the U.S 9th Air Force for far less sorties ... the only force to destroy more Noball sites was the U.S 8th Air Force with a hell of a lot more effort and sortie numbers._


_

And whats the point?




The facts are clear; Britain had a navy large enough to defeat the Kriegsmarine in 1939 all the way through 1945. The only problem the Royal Navy encountered was when fighting the Italian, Japanese and German but since the U.S is still fighting the Japanese navy then Britain is fine handling the German and Italian on its own.

Click to expand...


Is that why you needed our B24's for sub patrols, our escort carriers, destroyers and escorts for convoy protection?_


----------



## Hunter368 (May 17, 2007)

This it getting good now.


----------



## m kenny (May 17, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> It was US production and manpower that made it possible for the allies to win. After all, if it was all that great, why did we have to give you the airplanes, ships and supply the troops?



Nobody gave the UK anything. It was all bought and paid for. Naturaly after all the UK assetts were depleted the lender kindly gave credit. It was all paid for in full.
It was nice of the UK to 'lend' you 500 Shermans in late 1944 when you ran out of replacements.



> No US in the European war, no allied victory.


The same is true of 'no UK no Allied victory'.



> I think its been fairly well proven by others that the Panther and Tiger were quite superior to their US/UK counterparts. And they were only defeated in the long run by superior US production.



And all those tanks and planes fought on their own without any crews?
Your house catches fire and the fire brigade come and put it out. Do you then say 'thanks guys for your help but the real credit belongs with those who made the fire engine'. 
Why do some people try and grab the credit for everything?





> Unfortunatly, your fighters didnt have the range necessary to get to where the LW was flying over. Namely Germany.



Like that great long range Mustang with its great US engine. Following your logic as it was a UK engine all the credit belongs to the UK.







> Is that why you needed our B24's for sub patrols, our escort carriers, destroyers and escorts for convoy protection?



If it was payment on delivery you were only protecting your investment!


----------



## syscom3 (May 17, 2007)

m kenny said:


> Nobody gave the UK anything. It was all bought and paid for. Naturaly after all the UK assetts were depleted the lender kindly gave credit. It was all paid for in full.



Doesnt matter what the terms were. If the US didnt have the material on hand, you werent getting it at all.



> It was nice of the UK to 'lend' you 500 Shermans in late 1944 when you ran out of replacements.



It must have been a week long shutdown of the Detroit arsenal. Yes, we were making that many tanks a week.



> The same is true of 'no UK no Allied victory'.



Irrelevent to the discussion. The thread is if the Russians and Brits could have won in Europe without the US



> And all those tanks and planes fought on their own without any crews?



Huh?



> Your house catches fire and the fire brigade come and put it out. Do you then say 'thanks guys for your help but the real credit belongs with those who made the fire engine'.



Yes, we were the fire brigade who did put out the fire in Europe.



> Why do some people try and grab the credit for everything?



Couldnt have won the battle in Europe without you, but we definatly came into the fight at the right time, with overwhelming industrial capabilities, manpower and resources.

Thought for the day when it came to the material production of the powers:

"The US did more by mistake than whole countries did by design and planning"

And that was said by a Hillbilly aircraft assembler at the big B29 plant at Marietta Georgia.



> Like that great long range Mustang with its great US engine. Following your logic as it was a UK engine all the credit belongs to the UK.



Without the US being in the war in Europe, there is no need for us to have the P51. The PTO was "owned" by the P38, and then finally the P47N.

Again, no one has proven me wrong.

Without the US, the Europe would have been dominated by Germany or Russia!


----------



## m kenny (May 17, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Doesnt matter what the terms were. If the US didnt have the material on hand, you werent getting it at all.



Anything bought and paid for belongs to the purchaser. 'You' never gave anything.



> It must have been a week long shutdown of the Detroit arsenal. Yes, we were making that many tanks a week.



I presume that means you had no idea about the chronic US Sherman shortage. The UK managed to get the replacement rate right and bought and paid for enough tanks to cover its losses. Others made the wrong calculation andsuffered


> Couldnt have won the battle in Europe without you, but we definatly came into the fight at the right time,



You mean when the Soviets broke the back of the Germany army?




> Without the US being in the war in Europe, there is no need for us to have the P51. The PTO was "owned" by the P38, and then finally the P47N.



Nice swerve but you had no reply anyway.



> no one has proven me wrong.



Yawn.........................yeah you are so good at this. How could anyone prove you wrong on anything.
Next you will be telling us that if it weren't for your locomotives Russia would have lost the war!


----------



## lesofprimus (May 17, 2007)

kenny said:


> You mean when the Soviets broke the back of the Germany army?


Without the USA getting involved, the might of the German Arm would have been unstoppable, what with all the resouces that can now be sent to the Russian Front instead of sitting in France...


----------



## syscom3 (May 17, 2007)

m kenny said:


> Anything bought and paid for belongs to the purchaser. 'You' never gave anything.



Its actually irrelevat to the discussion. It was US manpower and material wholelly owned by the US govt that provided the margin of victory. 



> I presume that means you had no idea about the chronic US Sherman shortage. The UK managed to get the replacement rate right and bought and paid for enough tanks to cover its losses. Others made the wrong calculation andsuffered



Building 50,000 tanks and we had a chronic shortage? Interesting fact you invented. But then again, it just proves my point that the German tanks were so superior to the allied designs that we could build them by the tens of thousands and still be short! By the way, how many armoured divisons did the BA use in France? 



> You mean when the Soviets broke the back of the Germany army?



Yes. And note that it was the Russians who did that, not the Commonwealth.



> Nice swerve but you had no reply anyway.



Why would the US need a rolls royce powered fighter when there was no need for day light bombing over Germany? We had the P38 in the Pacific and it worked out fine there. Again you either have misread the whole premise of this thread, or youre embarresed you cant justify your arguments.



> Yawn.........................yeah you are so good at this. How could anyone prove you wrong on anything.



No one has shown me the industrial capacity or the man power the commonwealth actually had available to win the war without the US.



> Next you will be telling us that if it weren't for your locomotives Russia would have lost the war!



Those locomotives helped them to win the war.


----------



## m kenny (May 17, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Without the USA getting involved, the might of the German Arm would have been unstoppable, what with all the resouces that can now be sent to the Russian Front instead of sitting in France...




The bulk of the German ground Army served in Russia. Over 75% of the German Army dead in WW2 were killed in Russia.
Sure any extra released from garrison duty in France would have HELPED but the other side of the coin is the 260000 men released from the Russian front would have made any invasion in the west impossible.. The true scale of the Soviet effort is often overlooked by Western protagonists.
The Allies in Normandy had a greater advantage in numbers that the Soviets in the East.


----------



## m kenny (May 17, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Its actually irrelevat to the discussion. It was US manpower and material wholelly owned by the US govt that provided the margin of victory.



Yes the 800.000 GI's in France did all the work whilst the 650,000
Commonwealth ones sat around doing nothing.





> Building 50,000 tanks and we had a chronic shortage? Interesting fact you invented.




If you have any information as to why the US had to ask for 500 Shermans from UK stocks please enlighten us. There was a shortage of medium tanks in US AD's and this was made worse by the serious losses suffered in the Bulge fighting. Clearly you are not as well informed as you would like to believe. Keep on digging.






> But then again, it just proves my point that the German tanks were so superior to the allied designs that we could build them by the tens of thousands and still be short!



More T34's were produced than Shermans. Again you do not have a good enough grasp of the figures to be taken seriously. 



> By the way, how many armoured divisons did the BA use in France?


Are you on about the ones that took on the bulk of the German tank force in Normandy? All those Tigers/Tiger II and and Panthers you think so highly of?






> Those locomotives helped them to win the war.



What? A small fraction of the total Soviet stock and all sent from mid '44 onwards when the war was won. How did they help in the overall picture


----------



## syscom3 (May 17, 2007)

m kenny said:


> Yes the 800.000 GI's in France did all the work whilst the 650,000 Commonwealth ones sat around doing nothing.



Those 800,000 troops are the numbers needed to win the war in favor of the allies. You proved my point, didnt you? 650,000 commonwealth troops couldn't do the job, but 1.5 million allied troops did.



> If you have any information as to why the US had to ask for 500 Shermans from UK stocks please enlighten us. There was a shortage of medium tanks in US AD's and this was made worse by the serious losses suffered in the Bulge fighting. Clearly you are not as well informed as you would like to believe. Keep on digging.



Like I said, you again proved my point. You couldnt build enough tanks on your own, so we had to supply you. Then couple that fact with the German superiority in armour. So this little misdirection ploy of yours proves nothing.



> More T34's were produced than Shermans. Again you do not have a good enough grasp of the figures to be taken seriously.



And once again you proved my point. Not only were the US and UK tanks inferior to the German types, but also inferior to the Russians! But then again, the T34 was in mass production a couple years earlier than the Sherman, so that type had a head start. But numbers dont lie, and I dont make excuses.



> Are you on about the ones that took on the bulk of the German tank force in Normandy? All those Tigers/Tiger II and and Panthers you think so highly of?



Well, Monty wanted that objective in Normandy and you paid the price for it. And If the US had the objective, we would have been hammered just as hard.

But there was one difference between the Commonwealth army and the US 3rd army..... and that was of mobility and of a command structure (read Patton) that was intent on proving his own theories on how armies should run at full speed and not prod around. 



> What? A small fraction of the total Soviet stock and all sent from mid '44 onwards when the war was won. How did they help in the overall picture



The soviets were hard pressed in supply for a multitude of erasons, and this type of help was a force multiplier for them. Something had to pull the freight cars from their factories in the Urals!

Come on now.....be serious.

Show me some industrial stats to show how the commonwealth could have produced the ships, tanks and ariplnes needed to invade France in 1944?

If you didnt invade by then, Russian tanks were either going to be on the Rhine by spring '45 or German tanks were still going to be on the channel out to the Russian border.


----------



## m kenny (May 17, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Those 800,000 troops are the numbers needed to win the war in favor of the allies. You proved my point, didnt you? 650,000 commonwealth troops couldn't do the job, but 1.5 million allied troops did.



Sorry but your point was without the US troops the Allies would not have won. It is certainly arguable that the Russian could have ended the war without US intervention. I have seen nothing that suggests the US could manage on its own. No one denies it was an ALLIED effort and it is jarring to hear the claim that steelworkers in the US 'won' the war and without their efforts the war was lost.





> Like I said, you again proved my point. You couldnt build enough tanks on your own, so we had to supply you. Then couple that fact with the German superiority in armour. So this little misdirection ploy of yours proves nothing.



Oh it is not a ploy. You claimed that the US had tanks coming out of its ears and yet in Europe it struggled to run its Armored Division at there alloted strength. Worse still they had to borrow tanks because they got the figures/deliveries wrong. I would say my 'misdirection' illustrates a lack of any understanding of the reality. Strange coming from one who boasts 'no one has proven me wrong'



> And once again you proved my point. Not only were the US and UK tanks inferior to the German types, but also inferior to the Russians! But then again, the T34 was in mass production a couple years earlier than the Sherman, so that type had a head start. But numbers dont lie, and I dont make excuses.



Not that much in it. In June 1941 less than 1000 T34's had been made and the first Sherman rolled out in January 1942.




> But there was one difference between the Commonwealth army and the US 3rd army..... and that was of mobility and of a command structure (read Patton) that was intent on proving his own theories on how armies should run at full speed and not prod around.



Another difference would be the strength of the enemy facing you. Kicking in an open door is always easier than a barred, locked and heavily defended one. 
Patton?
Would the book I should read be the one where it is claimed more Germans panzers were destroyed by 3rd Army than were actualy in the whole of western Europe?
Patton who was stopped from attacking the Germans at Falaise because his superior thought he would be flattened by the German riposte?
Metz anyone?



> The soviets were hard pressed in supply for a multitude of erasons, and this type of help was a force multiplier for them. Something had to pull the freight cars from their factories in the Urals!



Maybe you are right. The 676,000 Soviet rail cars were not as important as the 11,075 supplied by the US.
The 25,000 Soviet Locos were outperformed by the 2000 US supplied ones.
Even though non of them were sent before 1944 they shipped all the goods from the Urals factories in 1941,1942,1943 and most of 1944.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 17, 2007)

Welcome back Kenny, I have not seen you around in a while.


----------



## syscom3 (May 18, 2007)

m kenny said:


> Sorry but your point was without the US troops the Allies would not have won. It is certainly arguable that the Russian could have ended the war without US intervention.



If that happens, then Europe speaks Russian.



> I have seen nothing that suggests the US could manage on its own. No one denies it was an ALLIED effort and it is jarring to hear the claim that steelworkers in the US 'won' the war and without their efforts the war was lost.



I never claimed the US could single handidly win the war in Europe. But all the facts and figures are there, and they are undeniable..... US industrial supremecy ensured the alies had the materials needed to win the war.



> Oh it is not a ploy. You claimed that the US had tanks coming out of its ears and yet in Europe it struggled to run its Armored Division at there alloted strength. Worse still they had to borrow tanks because they got the figures/deliveries wrong. I would say my 'misdirection' illustrates a lack of any understanding of the reality. Strange coming from one who boasts 'no one has proven me wrong'



Lets put it in a different perspective.

The UK tanks were not up to the task, and they never were built in numbers needed to offset the German qualitative supremecy. The US provided 10 armoured divisions to the fight in France, and even if they were understrength, they still were quite an impressive tally. Just enough were operational to defeat the Germans by numbers alone.

But it still goes back to one basic truth. The Commonwealth was incapable of building enough tanks, let alone find the crews for them, to defeat the Germans.



> Not that much in it. In June 1941 less than 1000 T34's had been made and the first Sherman rolled out in January 1942.



Six month head start. Thats quite some time in the war. 



> Another difference would be the strength of the enemy facing you. Kicking in an open door is always easier than a barred, locked and heavily defended one.
> Patton?



History has proven that Montgomery was incapable of fighting a fluid and mobile style of warfare. While its plausable that an invasion could be mounted in France, its totally implausable the BA had the eqmt and leadership to exploit it for victory.



> Would the book I should read be the one where it is claimed more Germans panzers were destroyed by 3rd Army than were actualy in the whole of western Europe?
> Patton who was stopped from attacking the Germans at Falaise because his superior thought he would be flattened by the German riposte?
> Metz anyone?



And? Whats your point?



> Maybe you are right. The 676,000 Soviet rail cars were not as important as the 11,075 supplied by the US.
> The 25,000 Soviet Locos were outperformed by the 2000 US supplied ones.
> Even though non of them were sent before 1944 they shipped all the goods from the Urals factories in 1941,1942,1943 and most of 1944.



Isnt it amazing the US produced so much, we had extra engines to give away?

Again you fail to show how the commonwealth alone could have defeated the Germans before the Russians could (and even that was arguable).

And none of this "The US needed us to win the war".

This thread is if the US stayed out of the fight in Europe and *YOU* were on your own.


----------



## m kenny (May 18, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Isnt it amazing the US produced so much, we had extra engines to give away?



You keep saying it but it don't make it true. You gave nothing away. You sold it. At least you no longer claim the US supplied rail equipment won the war!



> Again you fail to show how the commonwealth alone could have defeated the Germans before the Russians could (and even that was arguable).
> 
> And none of this "The US needed us to win the war".



The US helped win the war and it no more won it is no more than the Russians, The UK, France, Poland, ect did. What is dishonest is claiming that the US effort alone would have been enough. When added to all the other effort it was enough to make the odds overwhelming. It was never enough to ensure victory by itself. Russia winning on its own is at least arguable. US alone is hardly concievable. The UK has the distinction of actualy being' on its own' for at least a year so it did show that it could stand the pressure. Russia took on the overwhelming bulk of the German Army and beat it. It proved it could handle the Germans You can only say you think the US could have done it alone. 




> This thread is if the US stayed out of the fight in Europe and *YOU* were on your own.



Thats not how I read *Did the US save Europe in WW2* I see nothing about being 'on your own'.
Not content with inflating your own nations efforts you continue by denigrating others. This is not the best way to garner support. Nothing but chauvinism I am afraid..


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2007)

I don't understand why you seem so certain that the war in the East would be wholly decided by 1944. Explain why, in your mind, there's no chance of the war dragging on beyond then. 


_"Your war economy had maxed out in 1943. Thats a fact. There was nothing the Commonwealth could do about it. Now lets hear about all the big industrial plants, steel mills and massive aircraft factories that existed in Australia, Canada, India and SA. Hardly any."_

The British production increased throughout the entirety of the war; and the British Commonwealth production increased massively. Canadian Pacific Locomotive works in Montréal made thousands of tanks during World War II. India provided the majority of ammo used by Commonwealth forces in the CBI. 

_"You show a lack of understanding for the economic aspects or warfare. Prior to the US getting in the war, we had lots of economic potential and reserve capacity. Thats what the Germans and Japanese didnt quite understand. Plus we had the manpower available to not only raise large armies and navies, but also to have enough people at home to run the factories and farms."_

I do not show a lack of understanding at all; I'm showing a perfect understanding of your nature. Your argument is based purely on that it didn't happen, not that it couldn't have happened. 
The British Commonwealth had the factories, industry and know how to deploy in wartime which would over-whelm the German Wehrmacht - eventually. The Commonwealth had a manpower base larger than the U.S; which provided a work-force and a fighting-force. 

The U.S intervention meant that the Commonwealth did not have to gear up to such a large extent but could concentrate on using its men to fight, while the U.S provided the economic muscle. 

And there were many African troops in the British Army during World War II - in fact, there was no colony that *didn't* participate. So, it's pretty safe to say that the manpower was there to be used.

_"And yet your production was well short of the production needed to build the air forces, supply the divisions and construct the navies needed to do the job. It was US production and manpower that made it possible for the allies to win. After all, if it was all that great, why did we have to give you the airplanes, ships and supply the troops?"_

The production was enough to grind Germany into the ground; the only difference with reality is that it would have taken longer. The U.S.A provided a spurt of economic power that ended the war sooner. 
And what is your infatuation with the navy? The Royal Navy was larger than the U.S Navy at the start of World War II - and was always big enough to handle the Kriegsmarine; as it mostly did during World War II anyway.

_"I think its been fairly well proven by others that the Panther and Tiger were quite superior to their US/UK counterparts. And they were only defeated in the long run by superior US production."_

syscom, I don't mean to offend (seriously) but I think it's recognised that I know a bit more than you about the AFVs of World War II. And since your first comment was along the lines of the Allies only matching the Germans in the *last* few months then you're still wrong. 
The British tanks were equal or superior to the German AFVs in 1939-1940; the Russian T-34 was superior until the introduction of the Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf F/2 in 1941. The Panther didn't arrive until 1943 - and the Tiger late 1942. 

The Tiger set the bench-mark three years after the war had started - and by 1943 the British were building the Cromwell and well on their way to deploying the Comet in 1944 - equal and superior to the Sherman respectively. 


_"Unfortunatly, your fighters didnt have the range necessary to get to where the LW was flying over. Namely Germany."_

You best go tell the Whirlwind pilots they weren't flying over Germany. And since the Mustang was a British order - then it'd have soon been in RAF colours over Germany anyway.
On top of that, a lot of specialist German production was in Holland and France - ever heard of the Phillips Factory Raid in Holland ? Operation _Oyster_ - or maybe the British raid on the Cologne power plant? 


_"Face it, Bomber Command was doing a great job at night, but it was not a credible threat at all during the day. It didnt do the deep penetration missions into Germany during the day untill well after the USAAF had cleared the skys of the LW. BC did a better job of attacking Germany's industries at night, but it was the USAAF that went in deep during the day and destroyed the LW."_

Operation _Pointblank_ was a combined offensive with the initial stages being handed to RAF 2 Group attacking airfields in France. Given the right equipment, the RAF would have been much more able during the day. The reality of it all is when the USAAF stepped for the daytime - the RAF concentrated on the night, and any day RAF raiders were left to their own devices. And were generally ill-equipped ; since they should have all been Mosquitos.


And the point of mentioning Operation _Crossbow_ was obvious, but I'll explain - You talk about numbers all the time; Operation _Crossbow_ is a perfect example where the RAF did better with less numbers. We didn't need the USAAF numbers, fact. 


_"Is that why you needed our B24's for sub patrols, our escort carriers, destroyers and escorts for convoy protection?"_

Should I say; if the USAAF was so big - why did you borrow Spitfires off us?


----------



## syscom3 (May 18, 2007)

plan_D said:


> I don't understand why you seem so certain that the war in the East would be wholly decided by 1944. Explain why, in your mind, there's no chance of the war dragging on beyond then.



Because either the Germans marshall enough resources to stop the Russians from corssing into Poland, or the Russians are still strong enough to beat the Germans through sheer attrition.

If Germany had no fear of an allied invasion in France and Italy in 1943 and 1944, then more than a few dozen divisions could be moved eastwards. Plus, with no credible RAF day bombing capability, the daytime fighter force in Germany could also be redeployed.

The war cant drag on forever. 1944 would be the decisive year.



> The British production increased throughout the entirety of the war; and the British Commonwealth production increased massively. Canadian Pacific Locomotive works in Montréal made thousands of tanks during World War II. India provided the majority of ammo used by Commonwealth forces in the CBI.



Wow.... a single facility in Montreal made thousands of tanks. How about needing to produce tens of thousands of tanks? Amd again, your economy was maxed out by 1943. Any gains made were incremental rather than exponential.

India.... CBI?....... backwaters in the war.



> I do not show a lack of understanding at all; I'm showing a perfect understanding of your nature. Your argument is based purely on that it didn't happen, not that it couldn't have happened.
> The British Commonwealth had the factories, industry and know how to deploy in wartime which would over-whelm the German Wehrmacht - eventually. The Commonwealth had a manpower base larger than the U.S; which provided a work-force and a fighting-force.



"Eventually" means an unlimited ammount of time, of which you didnt have. And how many years do you have to train, or transport these people to shipyards and factories that didnt exist?



> The U.S intervention meant that the Commonwealth did not have to gear up to such a large extent but could concentrate on using its men to fight, while the U.S provided the economic muscle.



The US Army was far larger than the BA. We probivded lots of material AND men. BTW, did you know the the USAAF 8th/9th/12th/15th AF's were 3 times larger than the RAF?



> And there were many African troops in the British Army during World War II - in fact, there was no colony that *didn't* participate. So, it's pretty safe to say that the manpower was there to be used.



Simply amazing they were there and never used, considering the dire manpower problems you had.



> The production was enough to grind Germany into the ground; the only difference with reality is that it would have taken longer. The U.S.A provided a spurt of economic power that ended the war sooner.



Provided a spurt of economic power? Try a massive dose of industrial suprememcy that completely overwhelmed the axis in every single catagory.



> And what is your infatuation with the navy? The Royal Navy was larger than the U.S Navy at the start of World War II - and was always big enough to handle the Kriegsmarine; as it mostly did during World War II anyway.



Is that why the KM nearly brought you to your knee's in 1941 and 1942?

Tell me about the size of the RN to the USN in 1944 and 1945.



> syscom, I don't mean to offend (seriously) but I think it's recognised that I know a bit more than you about the AFVs of World War II. And since your first comment was along the lines of the Allies only matching the Germans in the *last* few months then you're still wrong.
> The British tanks were equal or superior to the German AFVs in 1939-1940; the Russian T-34 was superior until the introduction of the Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf F/2 in 1941. The Panther didn't arrive until 1943 - and the Tiger late 1942.
> 
> The Tiger set the bench-mark three years after the war had started - and by 1943 the British were building the Cromwell and well on their way to deploying the Comet in 1944 - equal and superior to the Sherman respectively.



The Comet was superior to the Sherman? Big deal. Compare it to the Tiger or Panther in 1944/45



> You best go tell the Whirlwind pilots they weren't flying over Germany. And since the Mustang was a British order - then it'd have soon been in RAF colours over Germany anyway.



Whirlwind's? Obviously the greatest long range fighter of WW2!!!!!!!!!

Mustangs over germany in hardly enough numbers to be decisive, and probably not untill late 1944, right when an invasion of France was out of the order.



> On top of that, a lot of specialist German production was in Holland and France - ever heard of the Phillips Factory Raid in Holland ? Operation _Oyster_ - or maybe the British raid on the Cologne power plant?



Tell me about daytime 1000 bomber raids deep into Germany like to Leuna, Berlin, Vienna, blah, bah, blah.



> Operation _Pointblank_ was a combined offensive with the initial stages being handed to RAF 2 Group attacking airfields in France. Given the right equipment, the RAF would have been much more able during the day. The reality of it all is when the USAAF stepped for the daytime - the RAF concentrated on the night, and any day RAF raiders were left to their own devices. And were generally ill-equipped ; since they should have all been Mosquitos.



The B17 and B24 were vulnerable to German fighters. now take the lanc, which flew lower and had far less armor and firepower, then imagine the losses it was going to take.

The bombing campaign was quite clear....The RAF Bomber Command had the resources to fight at night, but didnt have the aircraft or material to fight during the day.



> And the point of mentioning Operation _Crossbow_ was obvious, but I'll explain - You talk about numbers all the time; Operation _Crossbow_ is a perfect example where the RAF did better with less numbers. We didn't need the USAAF numbers, fact.



To fight at day and night you would need an additional 3000 heavy bombers. of which you had no capacity to produce, let alone find the crews and ground staff to support them. And that doesnt take into account the 3000 fighters you would need to protect them during the day.




> I say; if the USAAF was so big - why did you borrow Spitfires off us?



Well duhhhhhhhh.......... it wasnt untill 1943 that the full force of the aircraft factories were felt. We did have to build and train an immense air force after all. 

Again, Noone has offered proof that the Commonwelath had the resources necessary to defeat the Germans alone.

Again.....its quite evident, that the US provided the material and manpower to ensure an allied victory!


----------



## m kenny (May 18, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Again, Noone has offered proof that the Commonwelath had the resources necessary to defeat the Germans alone.



It is your straw man argument Reverse it and it is equaly true that US resources could not defeat Germany alone. Note though that only you feel the need to puff out your chest and actively slight one of the other Allied powers. 



> ]Again.....its quite evident, that the US provided the material and manpower to ensure an allied victory!



True the addition of the US made the scales tilt in the Allied direction but only because they were nearly in blance to begin with. The USSR gave more in % terms than the US. They and they (virtualy) alone destroyed the German Army. 
Thus you can say is the US contribution finaly tipped the balance. Saying it could have done it unaided in just speculation.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 18, 2007)

I think for arguments sake, the fact that the US could not have defeated Germany on its own is a given... The same is true if u turn it around, the Allies wouldnt have beaten Germany without the USA's assistance....


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 18, 2007)

> Without the US, the Europe would have been dominated by Germany or Russia!


*OOOOOH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!*


----------



## syscom3 (May 18, 2007)

m kenny said:


> It is your straw man argument Reverse it and it is equaly true that US resources could not defeat Germany alone. Note though that only you feel the need to puff out your chest and actively slight one of the other Allied powers.



I have never claimed that. 

*I REPEAT.....THE US COULD NOT HAVE DEFEATED THE GERMANS ALONE!!!! BUT IT IS CLEARLY EVIDENT THAT WITHOUT THE MATERIAL AND MANPOWER OF THE US, THE COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES COULD NEVER HAVE BEATEN THE GERMANS.*



> True the addition of the US made the scales tilt in the Allied direction but only because they were nearly in blance to begin with. The USSR gave more in % terms than the US. They and they (virtualy) alone destroyed the German Army.



They did a great job doing it didnt they? Of course we helped them along with quite a lot of material support.



> Thus you can say is the US contribution finaly tipped the balance. Saying it could have done it unaided in just speculation.



I have always maintained that!!!!!

And the bottom line is, without the US getting involved in the fight in Europe, either the Germans win, or the Russians win.

Europe owes us an unending debt of gratitude for that!


----------



## Marcel (May 18, 2007)

> Europe owes us an unending debt of gratitude for that!



LOL
You really like this arguing, don't you Syscom 
True is true, we owe this to the US as you say, but we also owe a great deal of gratitude to the UK as we know we couldn't have been liberated if it weren't for the both, Commonwealth and US! 
So all of you are right in my opinion!


----------



## syscom3 (May 18, 2007)

Marcel said:


> LOL
> You really like this arguing, don't you Syscom
> True is true, we owe this to the US as you say, but we also owe a great deal of gratitude to the UK as we know we couldn't have been liberated if it weren't for the both, Commonwealth and US!
> So all of you are right in my opinion!



I like proving the point.

Nothing that the "others" have said disproves me.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 18, 2007)

They cant disprove ur general statement sys, but certain points u make are disputable, locos, tanks etc etc....

Maybe we can get back on topic.... German or Russian????

Could the Russians on the Eastern Front beat the unhindered in the West Juggernaut rolling across Russia??? Could they have taken Berlin and then into France and have Russian as the language of the European Continent???

I personally dont think so... I think that without the US joining the Allies, Germany stands...


----------



## Hunter368 (May 18, 2007)

I agree with Dan Sys on this one.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 18, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Europe owes us an unending debt of gratitude for that!



I do agree with you Syscom overall, 95%.

But this comment I don't agree with. Europe owes USA an unending debt of gratitude?

This is why I don't agree with that. Lets say USA did not help in WW2 in Europe, so Germany or Russia would of taken over.....I agree.

But if USA would of stayed out of Europe and let Germany or Russia take over then what would the world like today?

You really think USA would of been able to stay out of WW2 Europe and still be the same USA as it is today? I don't think so. If you combine all of Russia's and Europe's man power and industrial base (stay with me now, if USA stayed out of it and Germany or Russia took over)......USA would be dead today (most likely)....they would also be speaken Russian or German most likely, it just might of taken 5 or 10 or 15 years longer than Europe.

USA acted in WW2 Europe to help its Allies and do the right thing.......but at the same time it was saving its own butt even if it did not realize it at the time. So to say that Europe owes USA a debt of graditude forever........is BS. Europe and USA helped each other for their mutual benefit, no extra thanks needed.....just mutual respect for each other for a job well done.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 18, 2007)

> but at the same time it was saving its own butt even if it did not realize it at the time


.


----------



## syscom3 (May 18, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> You really think USA would of been able to stay out of WW2 Europe and still be the same USA as it is today? I don't think so.



It obviously would be different but the US was protected by two wide oceans and impervious to invasion.

Russia or Germany simply could never have produced a navy large enough to attack the US. 



> If you combine all of Russia's and Europe's man power and industrial base (stay with me now, if USA stayed out of it and Germany or Russia took over)......USA would be dead today (most likely)....they would also be speaken Russian or German most likely, it just might of taken 5 or 10 or 15 years longer than Europe.



So the US just surrenders to either power? Forget about the massive air force and navy we had intact in summer 1945? And again, how will those two combatants, do this? Even without the US having an atomic bomb, it was impossible.



> USA acted in WW2 Europe to help its Allies and do the right thing.......but at the same time it was saving its own butt even if it did not realize it at the time. So to say that Europe owes USA a debt of graditude forever........is BS. Europe and USA helped each other for their mutual benefit, no extra thanks needed.....just mutual respect for each other for a job well done.



The purpose of this thread is not to analyze the motivations for the US getting to the European war, its to demonstrate that the allies could not have prevailed over Germany if we were not involved. Its as simple as that.

If the US had not gotten involved, Europe would be under the domination of Germany or Russia.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 18, 2007)

> If the US had not gotten involved, Europe would be under the domination of Germany or Russia.


And if Great Britian and her Commonwealths had not gotten involved, Europe would still be under the domination of Germany or Russia...


----------



## pbfoot (May 18, 2007)

m kenny said:


> The UK has the distinction of actualy being' on its own' for at least a year so it did show that it could stand the pressure.
> 
> 
> 
> .


When was the UK alone I must have missed that part . Aussies and Kiwis in N.Africa plus whatever Canada had in the UK you weren't alone


----------



## Hunter368 (May 18, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> It obviously would be different but the US was protected by two wide oceans and impervious to invasion.
> 
> Russia or Germany simply could never have produced a navy large enough to attack the US.
> 
> ...




Those oceans you refer to not offer total protection, helps sure but USA would not of been free from attack.....in 5, 10, 15 or 25 years of building by the victor in Europe. See the cold war....it took the USA 40+ years to beat Russia alone.....never mind if you combined all of Russia and Europe together....USA would of lost.

Give Russia or Germany all of Russia and Europe resources and in 10-20 years she would of surpassed even the USA.

USA did have a big advantage in air power during 44-45......but not for long after that. Again unless USA were to nuke city after city.....the combined strenght of Europe and Russia would of taken USA down, it would of been just a matter of time.

Like I said I agree with you that USA or the Allies alone would of alone had a hard time with Russia or Germany.....but together they could take them down.

But my first post was to say that I disagree when you say "Europe owes us an unending debt of gratitude for that!".....there you are taking it too far. USA and Europe defeated a power together that if either one acted alone could not defeat. So to ask for a debt of graditude forever......BS. Thats wrong to say.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 18, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> And if Great Britian and her Commonwealths had not gotten involved, Europe would still be under the domination of Germany or Russia...



Thats my point I was making to him also.....not only Europe....but perhaps the entire world or at least a big part of it.


----------



## trackend (May 20, 2007)

I agree PB, I think MK may be referring to being being directly attacked, in that aspect the UK was on its own and the civilian population had to bear the full fury of a concerted effort of Hitlers forces with the prospect of an invasion.


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2007)

Hunter is absolutely right, with a German victory over Europe and Russia - the U.S would have easily been next. For Hunter; what syscom doesn't realise is that the U.S military industry picked up because of their intervention. Without U.S involvement they would not have the numbers or technology that World War II development provided. Meanwhile; Germany would have the numbers, the navy, the air force and technology that made so much a mockery of the American inter-war designs that the U.S may as well give in straight away. 

The U.S had the technological ideal but without World War II it would have never been realised. 

I'm rushing about this but syscom;

You asked me to mention a factory producing thousands of tanks in Canada - I did. There's no point in you trying to kick up a big fuss and laugh about it, I simply answered your querie. If you want to know more Commonwealth factories, ask for them ! 

And your "counter" about India and the CBI was flawed since I mentioned that for the industrial discussion, proving that the Commonwealth and Empire had industrial strength beyond Great Britain. The fact that you think the CBI was a military sideshow takes nothing away from the fact that the Commonwealth had industry beyond the U.K.

And all that takes nothing away from the fact that the British Empire (Commonwealth) alone had more people and a larger industrial base than Germany (you know, the enemy) - so there's no need to compare the potential that wasn't realised in the Commonwealth to the potential that was realised in the U.S.

And if you want to rabbit on about how Europe owes the U.S a undying amout of gratitude - maybe you should think read up on your history and starting thanking the British for letting you survive. But I won't get into that, it'll touch a nerve...

Do you know when the declaration of independance was really signed? I'll give you a hint; it's not the 4th of July.


----------



## bomber (May 21, 2007)

Debt of gratitude... unending ?

I'd like to ask folk this question...

If the USA had stood up in 1939 against oppression and 'perverted sciences', the experimentation on the ill and various peoples. Do we think that Hilter faced with both the British Empire and the USA saying no would have altered his expansion strategy ?

And if rather than using the War in Europe to rebuild it's economy after the depression the USA had 'done the right thing' just how many millions of lives could have been saved by this action ?

Personaly I think it's to the USA's eternal shame that they had to be draged screaming and kicking into the war and all this 'we would have entered eventually...." is just face saving.

An unending debt of gratutde ?... Sys tell that to the 18,000 Londoners that died in the blitz whilst the USA striped any US citzens of their citizenship if they felt so outraged by their countries descision to stay out of it and came over here to fight...

The British people honour the dead of the battle of Britain and number some of them as being from the USA... but not one of them died a US citizen...

Simon


----------



## trackend (May 21, 2007)

I thought it was around 25000 civis killed in London but nearly every major town in the UK got bombed at some point, some, like Coventry copped it as bad as the East End docks.
During the war political maneuvering was riff and as in peace time each nation carried out policies that they thought best suited their needs normally the US and the UK would never have entertained links with the soviets.
Like wise IMO the US did what was required for them to maintain their way of life as did the UK.
I believe that sometimes it is forgotten that before the days of jet travel the world was a much bigger place and a war in Europe was a long long way from the States so I am not surprised that the US didn't come flying in all guns blazing and it definitely not as you said Bomber to their shame at all. The US did what they had to do and although from a European prospective it would of been very handy had they got directly involved a bit earlier its understandable.
IMO the US did not save Europe but without them things would have been a lot worse and it was reciprocal without the rest of the worlds forces the US at best would have become a very different place to live and who knows potentially another axis conquest.
Roosevelt may have thought the same he certainly had a inkling after Pearl


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 21, 2007)

bomber said:


> Debt of gratitude... unending ?
> 
> I'd like to ask folk this question...
> 
> ...



*What a load of BS!!!! *Where the hell was the UK and France right after they declared war? Both nations sat on their asses for over a year and let Germany walk into half of Europe. Had the UK and France invaded Germany right from the onset, it would have thrown Hitler off balance, but this is a "would of, could of," But be rest assured, the UK would not have suffered the carnage it did during the B of B had this happened. Blaming the US for not entering the war in 1939 is just as lame as "An unending debt of gratitude," which I agree with you there. 

Within 6 months of Pearl Harbor, the US went on the offence and never looked back, and yes without the combined effort of all the allies in the ETO, Germany would not have been defeated. As stated, blaming the US for your Battle of Britain losses is just as lame as the Maginot Line....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 21, 2007)

Have to agree with FBJ on this. To blame the US for problems that England had in 1939 to 1941 is bullshit. Until 1941 it was not the US problem or war for them to fight.

Get over it...


----------



## pbfoot (May 21, 2007)

bomber said:


> An unending debt of gratutde ?... Sys tell that to the 18,000 Londoners that died in the blitz whilst the USA striped any US citzens of their citizenship if they felt so outraged by their countries descision to stay out of it and came over here to fight...



Are you sure about the loss of US citizenship they fought and died as US citizens mostly with the RCAF
"On 9 September 39, Canadian defense minister Ian Mackenzie granted Homer Smith a commission as Wing Commander in the RCAF. W/C Smith was now in charge of doing a general survey of American pilots before any official commitments were made. Headquarters became the Waldorf Astoria in New York City, where Clayton Knight joined him. The two men next set out on a tour of major American flying schools. By May 1940, Smith and Knight had a list of over 300 trained American pilots who were eager to come to Canada. At this time the Canadian and British ambassadors in Washington asked what the reaction would be to the recruiting of American pilots. The answer from the "highest quarter" [President Roosevelt] reassured both governments that there would be little difficulty if all were done discreetly. [U.S. nationals would not forfeit citizenship and would have the right to transfer back to American forces should the U.S. become involved in WW II].
92% of the Eagle squadrons came from Canadian recruiting
This might clear up any miscoceptions you have
Clayton Knight Committee


----------



## trackend (May 21, 2007)

Some how after Bombers post I'm not surprised at the reaction.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 21, 2007)

Its true however. How can someone blame the US for the Blitz? That is just a bullshit copout.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 21, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Its true however. How can someone blame the US for the Blitz? That is just a bullshit copout.


10-4!


----------



## syscom3 (May 21, 2007)

This thread is going off on a tangent............

The question is if the US stayed out of the war in Europe for any reason, could the Commonwealth countries invade Europe to join Russia and defeat Hitler.

Time is not unlimited. You cant say that by "1947 or 1948" we will be ready.

By 1944, it will either be a stalemate between Germany and Russia or a German victory.

If Russia keeps on rolling over the Germans, it will be T34's on the English Channel by summer 1945.

Now besides the single large factory in Canada producing tanks, name me the huge steel mills, shipyards and aircraft factories building hundreds of aircraft a month. Australia and S.A didnt have them, and the skilled personell to put them in India and elsewhere didnt exist. 

Its still further proof that without the US industrial and manpower contributions, Europe would have been dominated by either Germany or Russia.


----------



## Gnomey (May 21, 2007)

Why is time not unlimited. The Allies were going to fight until the war was over whether it was 1945 or 1948. If the USA didn't join the fight in Europe then it would of taken time for the UK to build up its forces with those of the Commonwealth. This would of taken time (it took the US 3 years to build up its forces so it is feasible that it would of taken the Commonwealth a similar length of time). An invasion would of still been possible, the Commonwealth could produce as much as America as has already been said so supplies of equipment should of been alright. An invasion may of taken longer to develop and prepare for but it would of still occured. The Russians were forcing things in Europe because of their situation. Hitler would still of acted as irrationally as he did (which means he still might of declared war on America - similar way to how the US got involved in WW1) but this would of happened later. If the Balkans delay had still occured then Barbarossa would still of failed at the gates of Moscow and with the resultant plans going ahead the Germans would still of become bogged down in Russia. It would of taken longer for one of the sides to win (particularly the Russians). With Churchill animosity towards the Russians it is likely the borders would of been different post war had the result of the war been the same (borders further East). 

Europe was dominated by Germany even with the US's industrial and manpower contributions until 1944, without the contribution Germany would of dominated for longer and I believe the Russians would of been unable to advance as fast (lack of American trucks).


----------



## pbfoot (May 21, 2007)

I'm just adding this for info Canada produced the second largest amount of military vehicles after the US at 800k plus
10000 artillery
250 k machine guns
16000 aircraft
but our largest contribution was nickle which at the time we had the worlds largest mines and without it no armour as well as Uranium and radium which was handy for Manhattan 
But without US particpation very few of the aircraft we built would have Instruments or engines


----------



## syscom3 (May 21, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> Why is time not unlimited. The Allies were going to fight until the war was over whether it was 1945 or 1948.



Because of the German jets, rockets, and advanced U-boats were going to make things far more difficult for the Commonwealth countries to deal with.



> If the USA didn't join the fight in Europe then it would of taken time for the UK to build up its forces with those of the Commonwealth. This would of taken time (it took the US 3 years to build up its forces so it is feasible that it would of taken the Commonwealth a similar length of time).



Incorrect. The vast industrial and technical infastructure that would need to be built and brought up to production would be a vast undertaking. Try decades.



> An invasion would of still been possible, the Commonwealth could produce as much as America as has already been said so supplies of equipment should of been alright. An invasion may of taken longer to develop and prepare for but it would of still occured.



You need steel mills and shipyards to build up your invasion fleet. Your industrial capacity was already maxed out so new sources are needed. You also need aluminum for airpcraft manufacture. You need to mass produce aircraft of all sorts by the tens of thousands. You also need the technical manufacturing base to build the millions of things that go into a modern (WW2 standards) aircraft and ship.

This is quite a daunting task, and I just dont see this being done within a reasonable time.



> The Russians were forcing things in Europe because of their situation. Hitler would still of acted as irrationally as he did (which means he still might of declared war on America - similar way to how the US got involved in WW1) but this would of happened later. If the Balkans delay had still occured then Barbarossa would still of failed at the gates of Moscow and with the resultant plans going ahead the Germans would still of become bogged down in Russia. It would of taken longer for one of the sides to win (particularly the Russians). With Churchill animosity towards the Russians it is likely the borders would of been different post war had the result of the war been the same (borders further East).



So what is it? Panthers on the Channel and out to the Urals, or T34's on the Channel?


----------



## Gnomey (May 21, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> So what is it? Panthers on the Channel and out to the Urals, or T34's on the Channel?



Neither, there would be Panthers at the Channel coast because of the success of the invasion of France (they were there anyway). As for the Urals I don't think they would of got that far and there would of been also Panthers in Russia somewhere before Moscow. The T-34's would of been opposing the Panthers outside Moscow (stalemate on the Eastern Front).


----------



## syscom3 (May 21, 2007)

So you admit, that either the Germans OR the Russians would have controlled Europe without a US lead invasion in 1944?


----------



## Gnomey (May 21, 2007)

They controlled it for most of 1944 anyway despite the US led invasion....

I see that the Germans would of controlled the majority of Europe up to the point of an Allied invasion which would of occured when everything was ready.


----------



## syscom3 (May 21, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> They controlled it for most of 1944 anyway despite the US led invasion....
> 
> I see that the Germans would of controlled the majority of Europe up to the point of an Allied invasion which would of occured when everything was ready.



But without a US led invasion of Europe in 1943 or 1944, then the war between Russia and germany would have been decided by 1945.

And a commonwealth invasion could not have occured untill 1948 or 1949, if at all.


----------



## Gnomey (May 21, 2007)

What makes you so sure that that would be the case. The Russian advance was helped by the American supplied trucks which they would not have had without the American involvement in the war. The result of this would been that the Russians would have had an over extended supply line with an inablility to effectively supply their troops at the end of an extended supply line. On the otherhand the Germans were beginning to running of men and so they won't of been able to advance anywhere within Russia from their positions in 1943 (from here on in it would be defensive whether the US was involved or not). I don't think the Eastern Front would of been settled by 1944/5 as it was with American involvement (without an invasion the Germans would of been able to have more troops to stall the Russians on the Eastern Front).

Besides this arguement isn't worth it with you because you are so set on the fact that the war would of been over by 1945 without American involvement. America wasn't the saviour of the world as you make out. pD (and pbfoot) have shown the Commonwealth could produce both the manpower and equipment that the US provided (Commonwealth production didn't need to improve to supply the needs as the US was doing it)...


----------



## syscom3 (May 21, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> What makes you so sure that that would be the case. The Russian advance was helped by the American supplied trucks which they would not have had without the American involvement in the war. The result of this would been that the Russians would have had an over extended supply line with an inablility to effectively supply their troops at the end of an extended supply line. On the otherhand the Germans were beginning to running of men and so they won't of been able to advance anywhere within Russia from their positions in 1943 (from here on in it would be defensive whether the US was involved or not). I don't think the Eastern Front would of been settled by 1944/5 as it was with American involvement (without an invasion the Germans would of been able to have more troops to stall the Russians on the Eastern Front).



Without the threat of an allied invasion in france in 1944, there germans could have deployed enough divisions and airpower in the East to blunt the Russians. So its either a stalemate. Eventually the Russians will get their suplly lines in order and begin the offensive again.

Either way, Russia or Germany wins the war (stalemate is a German victory).



> Besides this arguement isn't worth it with you because you are so set on the fact that the war would of been over by 1945 without American involvement. America wasn't the saviour of the world as you make out. pD (and pbfoot) have shown the Commonwealth could produce both the manpower and equipment that the US provided (Commonwealth production didn't need to improve to supply the needs as the US was doing it)...



America was the savior because we provided the industrial supremecy to make good on allied loss's. 

The commonwelath had minimal industrial and manufacturing capablitity outside of the UK. 

Now name me the steel mills and factories in the commonwealth that had the capacity to build trucks and airplanes by the tens of thousands, with the manpower available do it?

Aside from a couple of small ones in Canada, you simply didnt have it.

End of story.


----------



## Wildcat (May 22, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> America was the savior because we provided the industrial supremecy to make good on allied loss's.
> 
> The commonwelath had minimal industrial and manufacturing capablitity outside of the UK.
> 
> ...



Why are we comparing the industrial capacity of the Commonwealth to that of the US? Shouldn't we be comparing it agains't that of Germany? No one in the Commonwealth was able to match it with American industry but with the combined capabilities of the UK, Canada, Australia and others, I believe the combined industrial "might" would have outweighed that of Germany. 
From an Australian perspective we only had a small manufacturing industry at the time (our population was only 6.9million) yet we were producing small arms (.303 rifles, owen SMG, stens, vickers etc), munitions of all calibres, Artillery guns, ships, tanks (yes we designed and built our own tanks, not great but the capability was there), radar equipment, and a/c of different types. Our a/c industry was not huge because supplies from America negated this, however the capabitity was there, sure the Wirraway and Boomerang were basic a/c but remember we were producing Beauforts, Beaufighters, Mosquitoes, Mustangs and it was intended to make the Lancaster here but instead B-24's were supplied from the US. Plus we could also provide vast amounts of food for the Commonwealth forces, in the PTO the majority of food supplied to Australian and US forces came from Australia.
The above is by no means a comprehensive list but combine the small industry of Australia with the larger capabilities of Canada and even greater production of the UK, I believe this would have been more than enough to combat that of Germany's.


----------



## bomber (May 22, 2007)

I didn't say that USA had to come in 'all guns blazings' just that they stand up and declare war at the same time as France and the Commonwealth.

Attack Germany ?.... have you any idea how reduced in number the standing UK army/airforce was at that time ?

We wouldn't have lasted 30 days on the offensive with stretched supply lines, it turned out we weren't that bloody good on the defensive either.

All that I'm proposing is that if USA had declared war and stood united with the commonwealth and France that Hilter might very well have backed down without the need of firing any bullets... You don't have to agree with it but it's a thought, that the USA remaining on friendly terms effectivley gave Hilter the 'green light' to do what he wanted in Europe as the USA didn't want to get involved in another European war like the last one.

Simon


----------



## bomber (May 22, 2007)

trackend said:


> The US did what they had to do and although from a European prospective it would of been very handy had they got directly involved a bit earlier its understandable.



What I find odd is the USA attitude to the transportation of cargo across the North Atlantic...

It must have been like 'selling old rope' knowing that 50% of the cargo that's just sailed will not get to it's destination and that tomorrow the man from Britian will come again with a fresh order.


----------



## bomber (May 22, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Are you sure about the loss of US citizenship they fought and died as US citizens mostly with the RCAF
> "On 9 September 39, Canadian defense minister Ian Mackenzie granted Homer Smith a commission as Wing Commander in the RCAF. W/C Smith was now in charge of doing a general survey of American pilots before any official commitments were made. Headquarters became the Waldorf Astoria in New York City, where Clayton Knight joined him. The two men next set out on a tour of major American flying schools. By May 1940, Smith and Knight had a list of over 300 trained American pilots who were eager to come to Canada. At this time the Canadian and British ambassadors in Washington asked what the reaction would be to the recruiting of American pilots. The answer from the "highest quarter" [President Roosevelt] reassured both governments that there would be little difficulty if all were done discreetly. [U.S. nationals would not forfeit citizenship and would have the right to transfer back to American forces should the U.S. become involved in WW II].
> 92% of the Eagle squadrons came from Canadian recruiting
> This might clear up any miscoceptions you have
> Clayton Knight Committee



Would you accept the words of an American Battle of Britain pilot ?

On past record you wouldn't 

Simon

Eagle squadron... don't think they were in the Battle of Britain... a bit too much hollywood


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 22, 2007)

bomber said:


> I didn't say that USA had to come in 'all guns blazings' just that they stand up and declare war at the same time as France and the Commonwealth.


 And in 1939 there was no reason for it. We did not have the interests in Europe as today, the American people didn't want war and the US was woefully unprepared for war. If anything we would of gone after Japan as there were numerous posturing and innuendo that Japan was ready to strike at the US, Netherlands, and Commonwealth in the Pacific.



bomber said:


> Attack Germany ?.... have you any idea how reduced in number the standing UK army/airforce was at that time ?


Then why the hell did the UK and France declare war???????




bomber said:


> We wouldn't have lasted 30 days on the offensive with stretched supply lines, it turned out we weren't that bloody good on the defensive either.


Your negativity is as astounding as your first comment. This is a "would of, could of" but had Germany been attacked during the initial incursion into Poland, it would of caught Hitler off guard, he could not of held 2 fronts at that time, it's pretty obvious that at least on paper, France and the UIK could of defeated Germany in 1939.


bomber said:


> All that I'm proposing is that if USA had declared war and stood united with the commonwealth and France that Hilter might very well have backed down without the need of firing any bullets... You don't have to agree with it but it's a thought, that the USA remaining on friendly terms effectivley gave Hilter the 'green light' to do what he wanted in Europe as the USA didn't want to get involved in another European war like the last one.
> 
> Simon


And again you fail to understand what the would was really like at that time. There was no reason for the US to get involved in Europe in 1939 PERIOD! And what do you think, you declare war "Just for the hell of it?" You really think Hitler would of backed down from an enemy 5,000 miles across the sea???? The eventual situation the UK got into was a result of misguided planning and policy and while the UK eventually fought back, blaming the US non participation is a cop out. Accept the fact that the UK and France squandered away time and resources during "sitzkrieg," the same way the US got taken totally by surprise at Pearl Harbor...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 22, 2007)

bomber said:


> What I find odd is the USA attitude to the transportation of cargo across the North Atlantic...
> 
> It must have been like 'selling old rope' knowing that 50% of the cargo that's just sailed will not get to it's destination and that tomorrow the man from Britian will come again with a fresh order.


And how else were supplies going to get over to Europe? It's the 50% that got through that helped keep the UK a float....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 22, 2007)

bomber said:


> Would you accept the words of an American Battle of Britain pilot ?
> 
> On past record you wouldn't
> 
> ...



Eugene Quimby "Red" Tobin, Andrew Mamedoff and Vernon "Shorty" Keough, all with 609 Squadron fought in the Battle of Britain and were the first members of 71 Squadron (Eagle) formed after the B of B. 10 Americans fought in the B of B, see for your self...

The Battle of Britain - Home Page


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2007)

bomber said:


> I didn't say that USA had to come in 'all guns blazings' just that they stand up and declare war at the same time as France and the Commonwealth.



And why should the US have done that? It was not the United State's war. Did England stand up and join the US in Vietnam? No because it was not there fight...

Get over it, that is such bullshit that one would say such a thing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 22, 2007)

Maybe the rest of Europe should have declared war when Germany annexed Austria or marched into the Sudetenland???? Always remember this guy, and the words he spoke. He thought he could subdue Hitler without firing a shot as well!!!


----------



## pbfoot (May 22, 2007)

bomber said:


> Would you accept the words of an American Battle of Britain pilot ?
> 
> On past record you wouldn't
> 
> ...


Nope I am already quite aware of the facts.
I am very curious as to where your facts on 50% losses  on convoys came from .I don't think it was that high . Pedastal and a run or two to Murmansk maybe


----------



## B-17G (May 22, 2007)

It is simply this. Without the United States economy an Allied victory was not possible. A stalemate maybe but no victory. The same thing happened with Japan as with Germany. When the experienced pilots were killed they were gone, the replacments just couldn't measure up with almost no fuel and very little reserves Germany was doomed. They spread themselves too thin. If they hadn't turned on Russia they may still be in control of Europe. The U.S won the war. Japan and Germany truely did wake a sleeping giant.


----------



## rogthedodge (May 22, 2007)

Damned vista update ate my brilliant post so here's the short version;

BOB - american pilots recognised in the chapel at Biggin Hill

US sportsmen sent 000's of rifles over after Dunkirk to arm the Home Guard (LDV)

A lawyer I knew for many years (by phone only) was the typical British barrister type - nice chap, died a few years ago and we were all stunned to find out that he was a New York Jew who came over in '39 to join the British Army, served all the way through (with us) and was decorated at least twice. I'm sure there are many other examples of 'unseen' help from our cousins across the ocean.

Can we kill this thread now?

Or at least be a bit nicer to the sceptics


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 22, 2007)

B-17G said:


> It is simply this. Without the United States economy an Allied victory was not possible. A stalemate maybe but no victory. The same thing happened with Japan as with Germany. When the experienced pilots were killed they were gone, the replacments just couldn't measure up with almost no fuel and very little reserves Germany was doomed. They spread themselves too thin. If they hadn't turned on Russia they may still be in control of Europe. The U.S won the war. Japan and Germany truely did wake a sleeping giant.


I suggest you go through this forum and read some other threads about the amount of Experten that were still around in 1945. Germany had PLENTY of excellent pilots left and if not for the lack of fuel the war would of lasted a lot longer...
 
You're quoting a myth with regards to Germany....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 22, 2007)

rogthedodge said:


> Damned vista update ate my brilliant post so here's the short version;
> 
> BOB - american pilots recognised in the chapel at Biggin Hill
> 
> ...



Very cool Rog!!!


----------



## plan_D (May 23, 2007)

The fact of the matter is, syscom, you're basing your whole argument on this idea that the war on the Eastern Front would be decided in 1944 - and there's no evidence to back that assumption up. 

The Commonwealth had the industrial capability to defeat Germany in a war of attrition. From day one, you should have realised that the Commonwealth didn't gear up to maximum because we let the U.S do it. 
Without the U.S, Australia would have been building Lancasters like Wildcat said - but with the U.S they just used the B-24s that were already built. 

To think it would have taken decades for the Commonwealth to produce enough to beat Germany in a war of attrition is bizarre. After all, the U.K alone was out-producing Germany !


----------



## bomber (May 23, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And why should the US have done that? It was not the United State's war. .



It was not a commonwealth war either untill we made it our business to be one...

The USA should have done it because like us they new what was going on, but unlike us they considered it not a good enough reason to object.





DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Did England stand up and join the US in Vietnam? No because it was not there fight....



After WWII The USA sponsored and secretly trained North Vietnamise terrorists to kill British personel who were providing temporary governance of this region untill hand over to the French...
The best the British governement could do was quietly ask for troops from the commonwealth.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Get over it, that is such bullshit that one would say such a thing.



I'd like to debate with you some more but I don't think I will


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 23, 2007)

bomber said:


> After WWII The USA sponsored and secretly trained North Vietnamise terrorists to kill British personel who were providing temporary governance of this region untill hand over to the French...
> The best the British governement could do was quietly ask for troops from the commonwealth.


Show us that please....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 23, 2007)

bomber said:


> It was not a commonwealth war either untill we made it our business to be one...
> 
> The USA should have done it because like us they new what was going on, but unlike us they considered it not a good enough reason to object.



No a neutral nation does not get involved with international conflicts just for the hell of it. It was not our war, what do you not understand about it. If I had been the US president I would not have jumped to conclusions and just sent men off to die on another continent in war that at that point had nothing to do with us.



bomber said:


> After WWII The USA sponsored and secretly trained North Vietnamise terrorists to kill British personel who were providing temporary governance of this region untill hand over to the French...
> The best the British governement could do was quietly ask for troops from the commonwealth.



Please state sources for you facts. I have never heard of that....





bomber said:


> I'd like to debate with you some more but I don't think I will



Why because you realize that what you said was not very smart but you just dont want to admit to it.


----------



## bomber (May 23, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Eugene Quimby "Red" Tobin, Andrew Mamedoff and Vernon "Shorty" Keough, all with 609 Squadron fought in the Battle of Britain and were the first members of 71 Squadron (Eagle) formed after the B of B. 10 Americans fought in the B of B, see for your self...
> 
> The Battle of Britain - Home Page



I think you proved my point did you not that the Eagle squadrons was formed after the BoB.

Still as you see we honour them as American... even if they didn't have the nationality

Simon


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 23, 2007)

bomber said:


> I think you proved my point did you not that the Eagle squadrons was formed after the BoB.
> 
> Still as you see we honour them as American... even if they didn't have the nationality
> 
> Simon


The point is they never LOST their nationality, that was idle threat that was quickly swept under the rug....

And no one ever said the Eagle Squadron fought in the B of B.


----------



## syscom3 (May 23, 2007)

plan_D said:


> The fact of the matter is, syscom, you're basing your whole argument on this idea that the war on the Eastern Front would be decided in 1944 - and there's no evidence to back that assumption up.



My point is that without the US involved in the war in Europe, the commonwealth in 1943 and 1944 would have no capability to invade Europe. That would free up lots of German air and groud units to go east. In 1944, the war in the east was going to be decided regardless of what the commonwealth could do. Either by stalemate or victory by Germany or Russia, the course of the war would be decided.



> The Commonwealth had the industrial capability to defeat Germany in a war of attrition. From day one, you should have realised that the Commonwealth didn't gear up to maximum because we let the U.S do it.
> Without the U.S, Australia would have been building Lancasters like Wildcat said - but with the U.S they just used the B-24s that were already built.



You had a hard enough time to build enough Lancasters to keep up the campaign at night. You had zero capability of building the thousands of bombers needed to begin a daylight campaign. And again, the lack of manpower impacts you. In actuality, if you had enough aircrews and ground personell, then you wouldhave joined with the 8th and 15th AF's in the daylight raids. But you didnt for that very reason.

Now come on, lets hear about all these aircraft plants you were going to build in Canada and Australia.

And major shipyards cranking out the warships, merchant vessels and landing craft? Hahahahahahah!!!!!!!



> To think it would have taken decades for the Commonwealth to produce enough to beat Germany in a war of attrition is bizarre. After all, the U.K alone was out-producing Germany !



But you still didnt have the capability to build the factories, staff them and then raise the armies large enough to offset the qualitative superiority of the GA within several years.

You keep talking in "would have, could have". I'm dealing with actual reality and what transpired in the 2nd WW.


----------



## trackend (May 23, 2007)

Some of what you say may be true sys as I am not that up on some of your figures but as for the LC production it was very big in the UK,not all landing craft where Higgins boats there was a very large number of LCA's and LCT's produced in the UK, some of the slips are still down in Dartmouth all along the river bank.


----------



## m kenny (May 23, 2007)

No manpower or equipment shortages in the US Army?.....................

US Army in World War II
Manpower and Segregation 
by Rich Anderson 

Manpower, Replacements, and the Segregated Army

In late 1944 a severe problem in the U.S. Army in general was the *manpower shortage. *Plans to expand the Army to 213 divisions were never met and it was proving difficult to maintain the 89 divisions then in existence - even though almost one-quarter of them had yet to see combat. Furthermore, the prewar planning for replacements was found to be totally inadequate. The causes were manifold: U.S. industrial and agricultural demands could only be partially met by bringing women into the workforce; the Army was fighting a two-front war; fear of the blitzkrieg had resulted in an over-expansion of the antiaircraft and tank destroyer arms; the requirements of the massive expansion of the U.S. Armed Forces in general had reduced the manpower pool; and, perhaps worst of all, segregation meant that a large percentage o the available manpower, African-Americans, were restricted to service support organization and a few separate combat units.


Unfortunately, the poor initial planning Army-wide was exacerbated by the general replacement policy in effect. Simply put, once a soldier was separated from his unit by wounds or illness, there was little chance of him returning to that unit. Instead, he was sent to a replacement depot, a repple-depple in Army slang. From the depot he would then be reassigned as needed to whatever unit had a shortfall in his particular MOS (military occupation specialty). This meant that a soldier could spend months of training, forming close bonds with comrades, the basis for unit cohesion, and then in his first day of combat could be separated from them, never to fight with them again. This system of individual replacement caused many soldiers to disguise illness and wounds so they could stay with their units. Other soldiers, in hospital, went AWOL (absent-without-leave) so as to rejoin their units. It wasn't until 1945 that the individual replacement system was modified to allow a majority of sick and wounded soldiers to rejoin their unit after recovering. 

At the other end of the replacement pipeline, replacements were trained by replacement centers (or stripped from divisions), shipped as anonymous replacement increments to a theater of war, and held at the repple-depple until needed by units. These men were military orphans with little esprit de corps and no cohesion. Many thought of themselves as replaceable parts in the giant army "machine," or as rounds of ammunition. The sole virtue of this system was that it allowed divisions to stay in near continuous combat for days on end, theoretically without eroding their numerical strength. As casualties left, replacements came in. However, the reality became that replacements came in, and with no combat experience and no one in their new unit looking out for them (the "I don't know him and don't want to know him, he's only gonna be a casualty" syndrome), they quickly became casualties.

Worse, the planning factors for replacements by branch were badly out of kilter. The original War Department replacement-planning factor for infantry was 64.3 percent of total casualties. Following continued pleas from Europe the factor was raised to 70.3 percent in April 1944. However, the fighting in Normandy soon showed that this was still much too low. By mid July the ETO estimate was that 90 percent of total casualties occurred in the infantry. Infantry divisions saw 100 percent losses in rifle strength in the two months after D-Day. *The lack of Infantry replacements soon approached near disastrous proportions.* For example, on 8 December 1944 the Third Army was short 11,000 infantrymen. This was only about four percent of the Third Army's total strength, but was the equivalent of fifty-five rifle companies - the rifle strength of two infantry divisions - or close to fifteen percent of the infantry combat power of the Third Army.

The Infantry further suffered from the Army's personnel policy, which allocated the most highly qualified and intelligent people to specialist arms (Airborne, Ranger, Artillery, Armor, and Engineers). The Infantry was filled with men who had scored lowest on the AGCT (the Army General Classification Test) - an intelligence and aptitude test and those who had not held a skilled job in civilian life. The elimination of the ASTP (the Army Specialized Training program), which allowed selected enlisted men to gain a college education while deferring induction into the Army and the reduction of specialized troop units (especially antiaircraft) had remedied matters to some degree by the end of 1944. Nevertheless, mediocre motivation and low intelligence continued to plague the Infantry.

Intense combat and heavy losses in 1943 meant that in 1944 many divisions still in the United States were stripped of trained men to build up the replacement pool. Some divisions were stripped of available manpower a second time later in 1944. This in turn affected the training cycle of the divisions, causing some to deploy late and requiring most to have some problems with their initial combat deployment. Four armor, one airborne, and seventeen infantry divisions (nearly one-quarter of the total formed) were eventually subject to large scale stripping of men (nearly all of the other divisions in training also had smaller numbers of personnel stripped out prior to deployment). Fourteen of the seventeen infantry divisions were stripped twice. The aggregate affect was tremendous the 69th Infantry Division lost 1,336 officers and 22,235 men, nearly enough personnel to form two divisions.

Doctrine and Training

U.S. Army doctrine, as developed during the prewar and early-war Army expansion, emphasized mobility and combined-arms in both attack and defense. Mobility was achieved by developing reliable, robust armored and soft-skin vehicles. Unfortunately, in the case of tanks and tank destroyers, thickness of armor was sacrificed in the interest of mobility to the detriment of U.S. Army armored vehicles in tank-versus-tank-combat. This flaw was exacerbated by one of General McNair's fundamental beliefs (later proved to have been fundamentally unsound) that the armored division would not be required to engage and destroy enemy armored formations since that would be the task of the tank destroyers. Rather he visualized the armor divisions as a cavalry force to exploit gaps opened in the enemy lines by the tank-supported infantry divisions. The major flaw in this concept was that the lightly armored tank destroyers proved regularly that they were unable to engage and destroy enemy armor when it attacked in mass, even when the tank destroyers were deployed in concealed defensive positions. While the tank destroyers on defense were often able to delay or blunt an armored attack, they could rarely defeat them. Thus, instead of operating in an independent antiarmor role, the tank destroyers were semi-permanently attached to infantry and armored divisions, while armored divisions were forced to take up defensive as well as offensive missions, a role for which they were not well designed (since they lacked sufficient infantry). 

Another fundamental doctrinal belief espoused by General McNair was that pooling and standardization in the organization of the combat arms would facilitate the cross-attachment of units into combined-arms teams. Here too the realities of wartime experience proved to be somewhat different. It was discovered that the close cooperation required of combined-arms teams required extensive training and combat experience to be effective. Unfortunately, the infantry division training program involved extensive practice in infantry-artillery coordination, but no training in armor-infantry-artillery coordination. In most cases the first armor-infantry-artillery combined arms operation for an infantry division was conducted in combat and not in training. Furthermore, pooling meant that most of the infantry divisions did not have tank or tank destroyer battalions attached until after they had entered combat. The result was predictable; the introduction of "green" infantry divisions into combat often resulted in disaster rather than success. Eventually combat experience and unnecessary casualties forced changes in the emphasis in the training regimen, but problems continued to persist until the end of the war.

Finally, the basic tenant of U.S. Army Infantry doctrine was based on fire and maneuver at the squad level. The M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle and the BAR provided firepower at the squad level. However, in the ETO it was found that these were unequal to the job of suppressing the firepower of the German squad, which was equipped with the formidable MG42 light machine gun. Over and over the advance of American infantry faltered when encountering this German weapon which was capable of firing up to 1,100 round-per-minute (the distinctive sustained roar of this machine gun gave rise to common GI epithet applied to it, "burp gun"). Worse, German small arms utilized ammunition which gave off little flash or smoke. American ammunition had a pronounced signature, giving off a distinctive puff of blue smoke and an intense flash. The result was that German infantry could fire with a good chance of not revealing their position, American infantry could not. All American ammunition had this characteristic to a degree; tank and artillery rounds also gave off a prominent flash. 

Oddities


----------



## syscom3 (May 23, 2007)

trackend said:


> Some of what you say may be true sys as I am not that up on some of your figures but as for the LC production it was very big in the UK,not all landing craft where Higgins boats there was a very large number of LCA's and LCT's produced in the UK, some of the slips are still down in Dartmouth all along the river bank.



Remember the arguments in the thread about the German logistical problems with "Sealion" due to their lack of large amphib vessels?

The same thing here would apply to the Commonwealth. Untill you had large numbers of LST's and LCI's, then a hypothetical invasion of France was going to fail or flounder.

And also rememer that it took a direct order from Admiral King and General Marshall to order the US shipyards to begin concentrating their resources on building the tens of thousands of amphib and supply vessels. If this hadnt been ordered in 1943, then the Normandy invasion in 1944 wouldnt have occured at all.


----------



## syscom3 (May 23, 2007)

m kenny said:


> No manpower or equipment shortages in the US Army?.....................
> 
> US Army in World War II
> Manpower and Segregation
> ...



Since the US supplied a majority of the divisions for the fight for western Europe, then imagine the manpower problems the Commonwealth countries faced.


----------



## m kenny (May 23, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Since the US supplied a majority of the divisions for the fight for western Europe, then imagine the manpower problems the Commonwealth countries faced.



Oh I know the manpower problems and I know every nation faced them. You seem to believe the US could do anything when plainly they struggled like all the other Armies..
It seems to me you simply are trying to claim the credit for everything. 
You constantly say the US had 'more' of everything. Well if your population is larger then obviously you have more resources. However if you were not building on the foundations laid by the same Commonwealth Forces then it is very doubtful that the US alone could have defeated Germany.
I find this type of 'you owe it all to us' argument rather distasteful anfd totaly unnecessary.
Anyway now you know that there were severe manpower shortages in the US Military you can stop highlighting the UK problems- or admit that the US shortfall was as crippling to them as you say the UK shortage was to their effort.


----------



## syscom3 (May 23, 2007)

m kenny said:


> Oh I know the manpower problems and I know every nation faced them. You seem to believe the US could do anything when plainly they struggled like all the other Armies..



Show me where I said the US singlehandidly defeated the Germans?

However, do you not agree with my statement that the US provided more personell to the fight, simply because we had a larger population?



> It seems to me you simply are trying to claim the credit for everything. You constantly say the US had 'more' of everything. Well if your population is larger then obviously you have more resources.



Well, we did have more of everything. Thats a fact. But you also discount the vast production and technical base the US had to build "more of everything". Did the commonealth invent the mass production methods to build the victory ships? Have aircraft assembly plants like that at Willow Run?



> However if you were not building on the foundations laid by the same Commonwealth Forces then it is very doubtful that the US alone could have defeated Germany.



Do you not aggree with my statement that the resources and manpower of the US enabled the allied to win?



> I find this type of 'you owe it all to us' argument rather distasteful anfd totaly unnecessary.



Well, if it wasnt for the US joining in on the fight, then Europe would be under the thumb of Hitler or Stalin. Take your pick.



> Anyway now you know that there were severe manpower shortages in the US Military you can stop highlighting the UK problems- or admit that the US shortfall was as crippling to them as you say the UK shortage was to their effort.



Only one difference between your manpower shortages and yours....... ours were self enduced by poor planning and concepts. That can be changed.

Yours were due to a smaller population, and that cant be changed.


----------



## bigZ (May 23, 2007)

"After WWII The USA sponsored and secretly trained North Vietnamise terrorists to kill British personel who were providing temporary governance of this region untill hand over to the French...
The best the British governement could do was quietly ask for troops from the commonwealth." 

Don't no about USA sponsoring terrorists. But Mountbatten mainly used Japanese troops for policing the region.


----------



## rogthedodge (May 23, 2007)

Please can we stop this sniping (if you want a UK Vs US slugfest I suggest joining the UFO nuts on abovetopsecret.com).

We (UK) could't have won without the empire, we couldn't have won without the US. The US couldn't have won if we had thrown our lot in with hitler (as per the DoW and Lord Halifax's suggestion (?).

I don't for one second assume that hitler's supposed offer of the UK keeps our empire and germany develops its own would have been honoured but IF it had been then the US would have been defeated by the combined efforts of 3 opposing empires. 

Please acknowledge we did have a choice and took the correct course to our ever-lasting cost - empire aside we're still paying!

Some on here seem to love to trot out this 'but for us you'd all be speaking German' bile - I'm afraid it only reminds me of the same line used by english football louts when they shame us by smashing up Belgium. 

Both are cheap shots and demean the combined efforts of many, many brave dead, maimed, wounded and traumatised men (and the odd chick ) who TOGETHER defeated one of the most evil men ever to walk the planet.

Such [email protected] may sound good when one has drink taken but reading it / hearing it only makes me sad. I'm sure sycom has higher motives than the english football louts but could, perhaps, try harder to demonstrate this.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ho Chi Min 'nam:

HCM (not called that at the time) was armed by the US to lead a resistance movement within 'nam against the Japanese occupiers. They succeded in tying down 3 japanese divisions which obviously benefited the allies. 

When Japan surrendered the UK were given operational control of 'nam but were short of troops. We convinced HCM that it was time to disarm and suggested this would be a good move in their strive for independence. They duly trotted in and stacked their weapons. Silly them.

UK command seconded the 3 Japanese inf divisions in country, re armed them and used them to control the country until the French had sufficient troops available to re occupy their colony. (Can't recall who but some UK General commented the japanese were the best troops he'd ever commanded).


HCM got shafted by the US, the UK, The French - you can understand he was a bit miffed!

The whole thing was collectively one of our darker hours but I don't think it is a good episode to 'prove' anything about UK/US relations / terrorism etc etc

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry for the rant / bad spelling / profanity but this re-fighting the American war of Independence 200+ years after it was decided really pisses me off


----------



## m kenny (May 24, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Well, if it wasnt for the US joining in on the fight, then Europe would be under the thumb of Hitler or Stalin. Take your pick.



Take a third choice......bollo*ks


----------



## bomber (May 24, 2007)

rogthedodge said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Ho Chi Min 'nam:
> ...



Close Rog... but at least there's another person on here who has an understanding of the past...

During the War the region formally know as South Indo China was operationaly split in 2 for the creation of insurgent groups to resist the Japanese...

The North was operated by the American Secret/special forces and the South by the British...

Did you Americans never wonder why there was a North and South ?

After the war the British apointed Mountbatten as temporary Governor of South Indo China, but was prevented from uniting the country as the Americans being against colonial rule in the region blocked it, rearmed HCM and set about a campaign of disruption of the British control. This included terrorist actions resulting in deaths.

If you wish to read about this then you need to research the early years of the British SAS..

Did you Americans never wonder why the British never entered into Veitnam ?
Did you think we'd just fliped a coin and it came down tails "Sorry chaps - not this one"
Don't you reckon there had to be something 'serious' that prevented our help but was obviously politicaly sensative ?

You trained and sponsored HCM during WWII, you continued the sponsoring of him against colonial rule after WWII and when it finaly dawned on your thick rulers that he was a communist with more in common with China you dumped him and made friends quick with the South..

Vietnam was a war of the USA's making...

Simon

p.s. Rog... Mountbatten also used German SS solders, along with the Japanese and eventually British.


----------



## bomber (May 24, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The point is they never LOST their nationality, that was idle threat that was quickly swept under the rug....
> 
> And no one ever said the Eagle Squadron fought in the B of B.



"As I walked across the bridge that morning I stopped and looked down at the swirling waters, wondering where they might carry me. I was leaving a country at peace, still becalmed in the depression, and going to one at war, fighting for it survival. I was more excited than frightened. Most of my family and friends were baffled. My own government was still in the sway of those who wanted to turn a blind eye to Hilter. It was not our war. It was not my fight. I had heard it all, but I kept on walking.
For a moment when I re-entered the RCAF recruiting station, my thoughts became mundane. Would they throw me out again, for being too thin, or too fat, as if I was in some mad version of Goldilocks and the three bears ? This time however, when I stepped onto the airforce weighing scales like a prize-fighter, the entire office cheered, I was in.
But there was price to pay. Like every American who joined up in Canada, years before America entered the war, I immediately had my citizenship and passport revoked for the crime of fighting for the King. The fact that so many of us Americans who volunteered in the Second World War before the United States entered it lost our citizenship for the privelage of being shot at in the interests of freedom remains to this day one of the least reported and least glorious chapters in the history of our early neutrality in the conflict. The US governments attitiude was simple : to fight for Britain you have to swear allegiance to the King and to do that you lose your American citizenship. I thought about it for a moment, my pen poised above the enlistment papers that would chamge my life. Then I went ahead and signed up. There are some things more important than bits of paper."

William Ash.
"Under the Wire"

Read his book...

[Sorry my mistake not a BoB pilot as he signed up in early 1940... but he is a Spitfire pilot and a remarkable man]


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2007)

rogthedodge said:


> Both are cheap shots and demean the combined efforts of many, many brave dead, maimed, wounded and traumatised men (and the odd chick ) who TOGETHER defeated one of the most evil men ever to walk the planet.



I agree and that was very well said. I think some people choose to forget that and it is a shame.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 24, 2007)

bomber said:


> Close Rog... but at least there's another person on here who has an understanding of the past...
> 
> During the War the region formally know as South Indo China was operationaly split in 2 for the creation of insurgent groups to resist the Japanese...
> 
> ...



Sorry dude, you need to do some more research - The US (OSS) stopped support for Ho Chi Minh in 1945 due to pressure from the French government and after the "August Uprising." There is no doubt the US knew he was a commie but he was fighting against the Japanese at the time and later even protected some Japanese soldiers from the French who wanted to prosecute them for war crimes...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2007)

bomber said:


> Close Rog... but at least there's another person on here who has an understanding of the past...
> 
> During the War the region formally know as South Indo China was operationaly split in 2 for the creation of insurgent groups to resist the Japanese...
> 
> ...



The US never trained *Terrorists* as you called them to fight the UK...



bomber said:


> Vietnam was a war of the USA's making...
> 
> Simon



And WW2 was a war of Europes making, so whats your point. So again can you please explain again why the US had to join into the war when Britian and France did and were clearly not going to do anythign about Hitler?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 24, 2007)

bomber said:


> "As I walked across the bridge that morning I stopped and looked down at the swirling waters, wondering where they might carry me. I was leaving a country at peace, still becalmed in the depression, and going to one at war, fighting for it survival. I was more excited than frightened. Most of my family and friends were baffled. My own government was still in the sway of those who wanted to turn a blind eye to Hilter. It was not our war. It was not my fight. I had heard it all, but I kept on walking.
> For a moment when I re-entered the RCAF recruiting station, my thoughts became mundane. Would they throw me out again, for being too thin, or too fat, as if I was in some mad version of Goldilocks and the three bears ? This time however, when I stepped onto the airforce weighing scales like a prize-fighter, the entire office cheered, I was in.
> But there was price to pay. Like every American who joined up in Canada, years before America entered the war, I immediately had my citizenship and passport revoked for the crime of fighting for the King. The fact that so many of us Americans who volunteered in the Second World War before the United States entered it lost our citizenship for the privelage of being shot at in the interests of freedom remains to this day one of the least reported and least glorious chapters in the history of our early neutrality in the conflict. The US governments attitiude was simple : to fight for Britain you have to swear allegiance to the King and to do that you lose your American citizenship. I thought about it for a moment, my pen poised above the enlistment papers that would chamge my life. Then I went ahead and signed up. There are some things more important than bits of paper."
> 
> ...


And William Ash NEVER lost his citizenship for fighting with the RAF - The man was a Marxist and pumped out a whole bunch of anti-American propaganda, *that's why he lost his citizenship* - Why did didn't the remaining American members of 71, 121, 133 squadrons loose their citizenships?!?!?! Because they never denounced the US, that's why!!!! Many of their members were absorbed in the USAAF, and at least one became a Major General

"Returning to England some four year later, and still on the staff of the BBC's External Services, he began to take an active part in left-wing "Gutter Politics", frequently to the embarrassment of his employers. He soon found himself out of a job and at about the same time the Communist Party refused him membership.

Later, he was able to get work in the BBC's radio drama department as a script editor, but he never did enter the ranks of the Communist Party of Great Britain. Instead, he and others formed the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) and his association with it took him to China; to Paris as a secret agent; and into close relationships with leading men and women of the Left all over the world."


Eagle Squadrons


----------



## pbfoot (May 24, 2007)

One question to the Brits where would all your resources come from you had for conversation's sake coal and iron but where did your oil gasoline aluminium copper nickel all of which are war critical materials come from


----------



## rogthedodge (May 24, 2007)

@ all the above and the HCM points - I'm sure between us all the 'truth' is in there somewhere ( I claim 10% ) but let me re-read some of my books and see where I got some of that from.


----------



## rogthedodge (May 24, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And WW2 was a war of Europes making, so whats your point. So again can you please explain again why the US had to join into the war when Britian and France did *and were clearly not going to do anythign about Hitler*?


 (my bold)

Newb very reluctant to fall out with the super-moderator:

But do you think that comment's entirely fair - fighting to the death in inferior equipment (Fairey Battle vs. ME109 / Cruiser A 9 vs Panzer III etc etc anyone?) or under inept leadership by the Brits and French strikes me as doing 'something'.

A cheap shot, and I feel wierd even making it, is that the Brits and the French (pre-Vichy) did more 'about Hitler' than the Germans did. 

Not trying to pick a fight I can only lose but couldn't let that comment go unremarked.


----------



## Matt308 (May 24, 2007)

And I'm not even sure what your point was. Say again?


----------



## rogthedodge (May 25, 2007)

OK - if it helps here goes

DerAdlerIstGelandet states 'Britian and France did and were clearly not going to do anythign about Hitler?'

My point is we both 'did something' - fought to the death with shite equipment against vastly superior forces and that strikes me as 'kin brave!!!! (taking off in a Fairey Battle to interdict a force protected by ME109's / being a French tank commander and having a go knowing your generals were squandering any chance of success / your life etc etc) 

UK and Free French continued to 'do something' in other theatres

Would the Brits have 'done something' on their own - who knows? Tube Alloys project and the massive stocks of Mustard Gas we had by '40 onwards suggests we might have done. I don't know how anyone can state with apparent certainty we would have continued to 'do nothing' in the face of the evidence!!

As per my previous posts (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/did-us-save-europe-ww2-7955-14.html#post250551) I think this thread started with, and takes, an unfortunate tone and while debate is good and healthy the collective heroic effort of all is often drowned out by the bitching.

For us (UK) to be accused of 'doing nothing' by someone with a sig celebrating the former enemy is bound to cause ire - hence my suggestion that we 'did something' about Hitler while the German people (the brave 0.2% aside) did nothing about Hitler apart from elect and fight for him!

I'm sure DerAdlerIstGelandet didn't mean his point to come out the way it did but reading what he actually wrote I felt bound to respond.

I've probably just spent half an hour digging myself a deeper hole but you did ask!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2007)

rogthedodge said:


> (my bold)
> 
> Newb very reluctant to fall out with the super-moderator:



As long as things dont become insutling then there is no problem. We can discuss things all day.  



rogthedodge said:


> But do you think that comment's entirely fair - fighting to the death in inferior equipment (Fairey Battle vs. ME109 / Cruiser A 9 vs Panzer III etc etc anyone?) or under inept leadership by the Brits and French strikes me as doing 'something'.



Yes I do think that comment is fair. bomber seems to think that the US should be ashamed (this came out of his own words) that it did not enter the war in 1939.

I have asked him again and again why and he will not answer me. Why? Because he knows this is wrong. 

What I mean by not doing anything. Obviously the Brits did something, let me explain. If the Brits together with the French hadl opened up a western front when the Germans invaded Poland they could have stopped Hitler. Hitler was not ready for the war either and his Generals told him that repeatedlyl. Instead the French (who should have taken the brunt of the action) fought the "phoney war".

As for my comment about WW2 being the making of of Europe. That is 100 percent true. How is it not. Was it not British and French appeasment that allowed Hitler to grow more and more bold? Ask yourself that question.

Until the US was attacked it was not a conflict of the US. It was a European War and there was no business for the US to enter that war. China and Japan were fighting each other before the war started. 

Anyone who says otherwise is wrong, sorry but it is true.



rogthedodge said:


> A cheap shot, and I feel wierd even making it, is that the Brits and the French (pre-Vichy) did more 'about Hitler' than the Germans did.
> 
> Not trying to pick a fight I can only lose but couldn't let that comment go unremarked.



No but it was a very stupid comment to make, especially when the person you made the comment to is *American*....

Therefore not a very well placed cheap shot.

Lastly the German people were not in the position to do anything about Hitler. Until he declared war he did nothing but good things for the people. If the British or the French or anyone has been in there shoes they would have allowed it as well.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2007)

rogthedodge said:


> OK - if it helps here goes
> 
> DerAdlerIstGelandet states 'Britian and France did and were clearly not going to do anythign about Hitler?'



You dont understand what I am saying. Here goes...

What did the allies do when German marched in the Czech? Nothing...

What did the allies do when Germany marched into Austria? Nothing...

What did the allies do when Hitler marched into the Ruhr gebiet? Nothing...(Granted that was German land)

What did the allies do when Hitler attacked Poland? They did not invade Western Germany when they should have.

Why do I say all of this stuff because *bomber* wants to say the US should be shamed because they did not declare war on Germany in 1939..

That is bull, it was not a US conflict at the time.



rogthedodge said:


> My point is we both 'did something' - fought to the death with shite equipment against vastly superior forces and that strikes me as 'kin brave!!!! (taking off in a Fairey Battle to interdict a force protected by ME109's / being a French tank commander and having a go knowing your generals were squandering any chance of success / your life etc etc)
> 
> UK and Free French continued to 'do something' in other theatres



That was never my arguement. British and Free French along with the allies fought bravely (and if you actually read all my posts I said that the allies could not have done without the US and the US could not have done it alone either without the British and Russians along with all the other allies - to many to name at the moment).



rogthedodge said:


> As per my previous posts (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/did-us-save-europe-ww2-7955-14.html#post250551) I think this thread started with, and takes, an unfortunate tone and while debate is good and healthy the collective heroic effort of all is often drowned out by the bitching.



I agree with you and never have stated otherwise.



rogthedodge said:


> For us (UK) to be accused of 'doing nothing' by someone with a sig celebrating the former enemy is bound to cause ire - hence my suggestion that we 'did something' about Hitler while the German people (the brave 0.2% aside) did nothing about Hitler apart from elect and fight for him!



Again go and read up on your German history. The German people were not in a position to do anything and if you lived in a police state such as they did, you would not be able to do anything.

As for the German people fighting, yes they did and they did what any other person would do for the country. Fight for it. My Grandfather was a major in the German Army fighting on the Eastern Front and I am very proud of his service. At the same time my other Grandfather was in the US Army and landed in Normandy and I am very proud of his service as well. 

I am very happy that my German and American grandfather found peace with oneanother and lived as friends after the war.

Now as for the celebrating the enemy? That was a pretty low and stupid comment. I will tell you that. Very cheap shot and very stupid. 

I am celebrating a great fighter pilot named Erich Hartmann and there is nothing wrong with that! 

*Now if by that stupid comment you are implying that I am a Nazi (which 99 percent of all Germans are not) then you and me will have a problem with one another so I suggest we get this cleared up this very moment.*


----------



## rogthedodge (May 25, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You dont understand what I am saying. Here goes...
> 
> What did the allies do when German marched in the Czech? Nothing...
> 
> ...




My repeat of the the first / expansion post was purely as Mat308 didn't get the meaning (as you clearly did) but as it's your latest (and most angry?) response I'll address it, rather than the first.

Let me say first I think this is all based on a misunderstanding and a less than ideal choice of words by both of us - my only reason to respond at such length (and with all these multi-quotes) is to clear it up. 

First 3 points you make I have no disagreeement with, although you could substitute 'allies' for 'US' and they'd still be valid.

the 4th point you raise; the BEF positioning and posture was based on an agreed plan (in which we were the junior partner and therefore obliged to comply), your suggestion (based on hindsight) is valid but was not practical for the UK alone.

Hitler was never elected? that is news to me. Of course people should fight for their country. My choice of the word 'brave' in regard to the very few germans who resisted the rise of the Nazis was wrong - 'noble' / 'right-thinking' would have been better.

Like you I recognise the bravery of the fighters on all sides and never said otherwise. Similarly I, too, find great solace in the fact that former enemies are now allies. 

Perhaps you should appreciate that on the evidence shown in your sig you are German and live in Germany - how i'm supposed to deduce from that that you are American is beyond me!

I come across a post from a German (?!) stating that the British and French 'did nothing' about Hitler - how am I supposed to react? 

I can't find a sufficient parallel to the apparent counter-intuity of the comment you posted: I could blame the Charles Manson for not catching the Jerry Brudon (Serial Killer - Jerry Brudos - The Lust Killer) before his 2nd murder and it would, I presume, get the same reaction 

I added the point about a *former* enemy to expand on the reasons for my reaction to try and help explain to Mat308 why it had irked me so. Nothing wrong with celebrating the bravery shown on all sides.

Re 'Nazi' if you check I never made that accusation, the pilot you celebrate may have been a Nazi, or may not. I have no idea but I never accused you of being a Nazi. Clearly many Germans were during WW2 and many were not.

Similarly I never mentioned that Germans *are* (ie present tense) Nazis. FWIW I've been to Germany many times and have always enjoyed my time there - including discussions with former POW's who spent most of the war in the UK. I have no modern issue with UK/German relations - the UK's wierd stance on the EU aside. 

The new expanded Germany does have a problem with Neo-Nazi groups (mainly arising from former 'ossies' as far as I can see) so I would question your '99%' statement but only by the odd %.

If you were 'all' German I'd argue UK/Germany should forge closer alliances and reign the US in more but I suspect that won't wash your other half (that's not an accusation of schizophrenia BTW)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I can see a few reasons for this spat (and hopefully it's no more than that)

I reacted to your post on face-evidence, not realising you were attacking a previous post.

Your 'less than clear' sig - perhaps if you had a dual flag representing your dual allegiences it would have helped - as it's presented it represents only one of your allegiences.

I should have waited to see if it was me being unclear or just that mat308 didn't get what I was saying.

Let's kill it here - delete stuff if you want / think it would help and, hopefully agree there's a shared 'blame' for us both wasting so much time over finding out we agree on so much. 

I'll take 25%, you take 20% and the other 55% we'll ascribe to mat308    

Has this helped?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2007)

rogthedodge said:


> .
> 
> Let me say first I think this is all based on a misunderstanding and a less than ideal choice of words by both of us



Ill agree with that.



rogthedodge said:


> First 3 points you make I have no disagreeement with, although you could substitute 'allies' for 'US' and they'd still be valid.



That I disagree with. The US could not have done anything and it was also the US's interest to decide. It was a European Problem.



rogthedodge said:


> Hitler was never elected? that is news to me. Of course people should fight for their country. My choice of the word 'brave' in regard to the very few germans who resisted the rise of the Nazis was wrong - 'noble' / 'right-thinking' would have been better.



Never said he was not elected.

If you go and read up on what really happened though you will see that the German people were poor and very hurt because of what was placed on them during the versaille treaty. The Depression also did not help things.

Hitler then comes along and promises them things and will meke there life better. At that point in time he never told anyone he wanted to rule the world and kill off all the jews. He was infact voted New York Times Man of the Year for the things he did in Germany and raising them out of the ashes of WW1.

So ofcourse many people voted for him. The Germans that were not on his side and were not going to vote for him he coerced them into voting for him by causing fear in them.

Once he had control of Germany he ruled it with an iron fist. You did not say or do anything against Hitler.



rogthedodge said:


> Perhaps you should appreciate that on the evidence shown in your sig you are German and live in Germany - how i'm supposed to deduce from that that you are American is beyond me!



As for the sig as I said, it is a dedication to a fighter pilot...

As for me German or American. My mother is German and my father is American. I was born in Germany and lived much of my life in Germany as an American citizen. I even attended American schools and so forth. After some time in college I joined the US Army and was stationed in Germany.

The reason I have the German flag is because that is where I live at the moment with my German wife until we move to Alaska and then it will change to an American flag.



rogthedodge said:


> I come across a post from a German (?!) stating that the British and French 'did nothing' about Hitler - how am I supposed to react?



As I said my post was a reaction to bombers very obsurd and bull posting about the US should have entered the war in 1939 and since not doing so they should be shamed and think of all the dead of the Blitz. 

Sorry that was not Americas fault and it was not Americas war yet, anyone who does not understand or want to believe that is very naive and is smoking too much pot.  



rogthedodge said:


> Re 'Nazi' if you check I never made that accusation, the pilot you celebrate may have been a Nazi, or may not. I have no idea but I never accused you of being a Nazi. Clearly many Germans were during WW2 and many were not.



I did overeact. And as a man I will apologize to you for that.



rogthedodge said:


> The new expanded Germany does have a problem with Neo-Nazi groups (mainly arising from former 'ossies' as far as I can see) so I would question your '99%' statement but only by the odd %.



Unfortunatly that is correct. Fortunatly there are a vast majority of Germans that are against it and keep it in check for the most part.



rogthedodge said:


> I'll take 25%, you take 20% and the other 55% we'll ascribe to mat308
> 
> Has this helped?



No we can give 55% to syscom for starting this stupid thread...


----------



## Hunter368 (May 26, 2007)

Syscom is to blame for everything bad.


----------



## syscom3 (May 26, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No we can give 55% to syscom for starting this stupid thread...



Its a great thread.

Its just no one from the commonwealth countries have proved that they could have beaten Germany without the help of the US.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 26, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Its a great thread.
> 
> Its just no one from the commonwealth countries have proved that they could have beaten Germany without the help of the US.



Hmmmm like how the USA (by herself) could not of beaten Germany/Russia if either one had taken over all of Europe, UK and Russia?

You mean like that?

 

Really Syscom you lose some credibilty when you are such a red/white/blue flag waver. According to you "God" must be a American also....right?  

Gets old after a while.


----------



## syscom3 (May 26, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Hmmmm like how the USA (by herself) could not of beaten Germany/Russia if either one had taken over all of Europe, UK and Russia?
> 
> You mean like that?



The thread isnt whether the US could have defeated Hitler on its own, but whether the commonwealth countries could have beaten germany before either germany or Russia wins.

Your right though, it does get old restating the objective of the thread.



> Really Syscom you lose some credibilty when you are such a red/white/blue flag waver. According to you "God" must be a American also....right?



God is always on the side of the strongest battalions.

And yes, Europe owes its existance to the US.


Heres some figures for the commonwealth people to dwell on.

Population figures for 1940:
Australia	7,700,000
NZ 1,700,000
Canada 11,500,000
SA 11,400,000
UK 46,000,000
Total 78,300,000

USA 131,000,000

Germany 73,000,000

As you can see, the Commonwealth was short 50 million people as compared to the US.

The German and Commonwealth figures are about the same, with the advantage going to the Germans, as the commonwealth needed millions of men of military age to run its vast merchant marine and navy.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 26, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> The thread isnt whether the US could have defeated Hitler on its own, but whether the commonwealth countries could have beaten germany before either germany or Russia wins.
> 
> And yes, Europe owes its existance to the US.



All your threads seem to be about "how the USA or USA products are better then everyone else's". 

That is what gets old.....not to mention incorrect. Thats what makes you baised, one sided.......thus you lose creditablity.

Europe owes its existance to the US? You have not provided any facts on that yet. Matter of fact.....you can't. B/c you can't prove whether Russia or Germany would of won in 1944. Not to mention you cannot prove what the battle field would of looked like after one of them would of emerged as the victor. B/c you can't. 

This whole thread is nothing but a huge "what if" thread that you cannot prove (USA) and Commonwealth side cannot prove.

In the end this is nothing more than a "what if thread" that cannot be proven one way or the other.

Thats a fact.


----------



## pbfoot (May 26, 2007)

Can you imagine a country with less then 10% of the US population made 800k plus military vehicles and the US with more then 10 times the population was only able to make 2.3 million the American army was not even the most mechanized


----------



## syscom3 (May 26, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Can you imagine a country with less then 10% of the US population made 800k plus military vehicles and the US with more then 10 times the population was only able to make 2.3 million the American army was not even the most mechanized



The production figures for the US were staggering. Considering that US production didn't begin in earnest untill 1942, then its even more impressive.

BTW, the US *WAS* the most mechanized army in WW2.

Even the supposed "un" mechanized divisions tended to grab and keep a vast array of vehicals even when not authorized.

The exception being in the PTO. 

Heres the figures for the production of military trucks, an excellent indicator on the level of mechanization for an army.

Military Trucks
1. United States = 2,382,311
2. Canada = 815,729
3. United Kingdom = 480,943
4. Germany = 345,914
5. Soviet Union = 197,100
6. Japan = 165,945
7. Italy = 83,000

Now remember that figure for the US is really only showing what was produced 1942 and after. Canada and the UK had nearly 3 years of production included in their figures.


----------



## pbfoot (May 26, 2007)

I beg to differ my sources show that the Canadian Army was with 1 vehicle for every 3 troops also 50% of aluminium used and 90% of nickel (real handy for alloys such as armour) came from Canada we also made possible the A bombs with another resource called Uranium.So I can make the arguement without Canada would the US have the natural resources to win?


----------



## syscom3 (May 26, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I beg to differ my sources show that the Canadian Army was with 1 vehicle for every 3 troops also 50% of aluminium used and 90% of nickel (real handy for alloys such as armour) came from Canada we also made possible the A bombs with another resource called Uranium.So I can make the arguement without Canada would the US have the natural resources to win?



The US had all the resources on hand for what it needed to do in the fight in the pacific.

And of course, using your statistics, the Canadian Army was probably the most mechanized in the world. But only one problem. It was also quite small compared to everyone else.

And again, the question is if the Commonwealth could beat the Germans prior to 1945.

And the answer is a resounding no.


----------



## pbfoot (May 26, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> The US had all the resources on hand for what it needed to do in the fight in the pacific.
> 
> And of course, using your statistics, the Canadian Army was probably the most mechanized in the world. But only one problem. It was also quite small compared to everyone else.
> 
> ...


I'm not arguing with your statement nor have I but I can make the claim without the commonwealth the US position would have been in much different straights and we contibuted more than our populations might indicate but this is not always clear as we get clumped with the Brits


----------



## syscom3 (May 26, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I'm not arguing with your statement nor have I but I can make the claim without the commonwealth the US position would have been in much different straights and we contibuted more than our populations might indicate but this is not always clear as we get clumped with the Brits



No one is denying the contributions the Canadians made.

But you simply were a small nation and the size of your armed forces and industrial output reflected that.

And again, it boils down to this.

The US provided the industrial supremacy and lots of soldiers to make an allied victory inevitable. Without the US, Europe would be speaking German or Russian. Take your pick.


----------



## rogthedodge (May 26, 2007)

@ DerAdlerIstGelandet 

Cheers - we should meet up for a handshake and a glass of decent beer - ie Belgian or German - none of that American crap 

In the interests of killing this spat stone dead:

Where I said 'sig' I meant the whole thing: your handle, the flag, and the actual 'sig' ie the picture.

You're right, I meant sysycom3 not mat308    

Mustn't get my septics mixed up  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

@ pbfoot - many of us Brits, fewer than I'd like but anyway, recognise the stirling contribution Canada made to the effort, without you we'd have been f***ed before the US got around to joining in (properly). 

The quote I recall 'Ready, aye, ready' stands tall in my memory and I and many other will never forget the contribution you guys made to the cause.

The commemoration of the allied effort I saw in just two weeks in virtually every town we stoppped at made me question how much we brits don't commemorate - without getting all 'gwyneth' about it I found it deeply moving and very touching

Based on my visit to that Corvette in Halifax harbour last year it seemed that some Cannucks were a bit taken aback by how much I (we) felt we owed to you. Whatever it's appreciated and will never be forgotten. 

-------------------------------------------------------------

@ the general contoversy / syscom3 - wierd isn't it that while it 'was not America's war', yet no-one seems to question Canada's immediate and unflinching support - surely they could have played the 'it's a long way away, we'll worry about it when it gets nearer' card too??


----------



## syscom3 (May 26, 2007)

> @ the general contoversy / syscom3 - wierd isn't it that while it 'was not America's war', yet no-one seems to question Canada's immediate and unflinching support - surely they could have played the 'it's a long way away, we'll worry about it when it gets nearer' card too??



Canada had far stronger ties to GB than the US did.


----------



## rogthedodge (May 26, 2007)

Ah but that was your choice - but for a rush of blood you could still be in the club


----------



## pbfoot (May 26, 2007)

I believe europe would be speaking either German or Russian but certainly would've been using German Currency . I don't think any land invasion of Europe could or would be attempted by the Brits or the Commonwealth we just didn't have the the total package to wage the type of war required.
The Luftwaffe would have had a much easier time time defending the Reich and would be able to divert substanial resources to the Eastern Front. The troops tied up in Italy and France also would be heading east ,and I'd garrison France and the low countries with some of the other axis troops Romania , Hungary etc .
Italy would be quite capable of defending itself 
Britian and the Commonwealth would not surrender but would probably be forced to seek a truce as the war dragged on it , unable to keep up on technology due to lack of funds, war is an expensive business.


----------



## syscom3 (May 26, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I believe europe would be speaking either German or Russian but certainly would've been using German Currency . I don't think any land invasion of Europe could or would be attempted by the Brits or the Commonwealth we just didn't have the the total package to wage the type of war required.
> The Luftwaffe would have had a much easier time time defending the Reich and would be able to divert substanial resources to the Eastern Front. The troops tied up in Italy and France also would be heading east ,and I'd garrison France and the low countries with some of the other axis troops Romania , Hungary etc .
> Italy would be quite capable of defending itself
> Britian and the Commonwealth would not surrender but would probably be forced to seek a truce as the war dragged on it , unable to keep up on technology due to lack of funds, war is an expensive business.



Well reasoned out PB.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2007)

Another thing you have to look at is this. Germany had a lot of troops in Italy as well. If the US had not entered the war the Commonwealth certainly would not have had eneogh troops to do an invasion of Italy and N. France. Therefore the Germans could bring there troops out of Italy along with the Italian troops to fight on the western front if the Commonwealth came to an invasion of N. France.

Germany would not have been fighting on so many fronts basically is what I am saying.


----------



## CRASHGATE3 (May 27, 2007)

Ive been really enjoying reading this thread .
Just a question....when you say speaking German or Russian,do you mean just governed/ruled by Germany or Russia?I cant see the English language ,or any European dying out...the Japanese still speak Japanese after WW2.I know circumstances were different and the Nazi/Russian leaders might have been more pursuasive ,but.......
Has there been any conflicts where a language has been lost...? ...native Americans ?


----------



## syscom3 (May 28, 2007)

Heres a list of aircraft production for WW2.

Aircraft
1. United States = 324,750
2. Germany = 189,307
3. Soviet Union = 157,261
4. United Kingdom = 131,549
5. Japan = 76,320
6. Canada = 16,431
7. Italy = 11,122
8. Other Commonwealth = 3,081
9. Hungary = 1,046
10. Romania = 1,000


What the list doesn't show is the production rates per month.

In 1944, the US was building aircraft at a rate that was quadruple that of the commonwealth combined.

Again, another statistic indicating just how the lack of manufacturing capacity the Commonwealth had, in trying to build an airforce large enough to take on the LW.


----------



## bomber (May 30, 2007)

How many Commonwealth pilots were sat around waiting for planes to be made ?

I mean no point in making loads of planes if your rookie pilots can't hold a formation together or fly at night now is there ?

Supply and Demand takes precidence doesn't it... we were too busy making toilet rolls because we were housing and feeding the US invasion army that was stationed over here 

Simon


----------



## syscom3 (May 30, 2007)

bomber said:


> How many Commonwealth pilots were sat around waiting for planes to be made ?



The commonwealth had a smaller population base in which to draw from, as opposed the US. You AF (and naval air) would be smaller because of that.



> Supply and Demand takes precidence doesn't it... we were too busy making toilet rolls because we were housing and feeding the US invasion army that was stationed over here



We brought our own.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 30, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> We brought our own.



Well US toilet paper certainly is better than European Toilet Paper!

Charmin Baby!!!! Like heaven on your ass!!!


----------



## Hunter368 (May 30, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well US toilet paper certainly is better than European Toilet Paper!
> 
> Charmin Baby!!!! Like heaven on your ass!!!



If you use that European paper you had better have a pair of nail cleaners with you also.


----------



## Hop (May 30, 2007)

> Aircraft
> 1. United States = 324,750
> 2. Germany = 189,307
> 3. Soviet Union = 157,261
> ...



The figures look a bit off, especially for Germany. I wouldn't trust Wikipedia as a resource, particularly when other wikipedia pages contradict that one.

The USSBS gave German aircraft production 1939 - 1944 as 111,247, with production of just under 40,000 in 1944. Production collapsed fairly early in 1945.

The usual figure given for German production is just under 120,000.

The USAAF reported US aircraft production of 264,200 from July 1940 - Feb 1945. Production was running about 1,000 per quarter at the start of that period, so assume a max of about 4,000 aircraft between the start of the war and July 1940. Production in the 4th quarter of 1944 was just over 20,000 a quarter, and falling very quickly (about 26,000 in the first quarter of 1944). 

If you assume 270,000 up to the beginning of 1945, then production would have had to increase sharply again in 1945, and I've never seen anything to suggest it did.



> In 1944, the US was building aircraft at a rate that was quadruple that of the commonwealth combined.


It was actually about 3 times Commonwealth production in 1944.



> Again, another statistic indicating just how the lack of manufacturing capacity the Commonwealth had, in trying to build an airforce large enough to take on the LW.



Well, the UK produced more aircraft than Germany in WW2. When you factor in weight, as the British produced lots of heavy bombers, the Germans lots of fighters, the UK greatly outproduced Germany, about 615 million pounds structure weight in the period 1941 - 1944, compared to 470 million pounds.

Britain produced more aircraft engines as well, about 242,000 1939 - 1944, compared to 185,000 in Germany.



> The Luftwaffe would have had a much easier time time defending the Reich and would be able to divert substanial resources to the Eastern Front. The troops tied up in Italy and France also would be heading east ,and I'd garrison France and the low countries with some of the other axis troops Romania , Hungary etc .



The problem is, by the time the US buildup in Europe really started to gather steam, the Germans had already lost in Russia.

If you look at the high point of the German advance, it was in the summer of 1942. By that time, the US army presence in Europe was negligible, the USAAF were flying only tiny numbers of sorties to easy targets in France.

By the end of 1942 the Germans were on the ropes in Russia, and still the US presence in Europe was negligible

Certainly without the US the Germans could have diverted some forces to the eastern front in 1943 and 1944, but the German's position was well beyond recovery by that time, and it was really only a question of how fast they retreated.



> Italy would be quite capable of defending itself



Italy was completely incapable of defending itself against Britain.

Without German assistance, the British and Commonwealth forces in Italy would have taken the country in short order. 

Without US involvement in Europe/North Africa, the war would have gone much the same up to the summer of 1942. Torch would have gone ahead solely with British/Commonwealth forces, and probably taken a bit longer, but by summer 1943 the British would have been in a position to menace Italy, although not to invade whilst the Germans still had substantial numbers of troops in the country.

The German offensive at Kursk would have failed regardless, and from that point on they would be on the retreat in Russia even if every single German soldier, tank and aircraft was committed against them.

I should think the Germans would hold on longer in such a scenario, probably until the autumn of 1945, maybe even the end of the year.

As to speaking Russian, I'd expect the zones of influence agreed between the British and Russians to give almost all of Germany to the Russians, but not France, Belgium and the Netherlands.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 30, 2007)

So we're not using newspaper anymere then??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 30, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> If you use that European paper you had better have a pair of nail cleaners with you also.



I actually find the Euro Toilet Paper to be similiar to sand paper...

I only use Charmin!


----------



## Hunter368 (May 30, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I actually find the Euro Toilet Paper to be similiar to sand paper...
> !



Ouch! That does not mix well with hemorrhoids!


----------



## Jonathan Garstin (Jun 3, 2007)

_


syscom3 said:



Seriously, if the US did stay on the sidelines for th war in Europe, could the UK have enough military capacity to prevail over the Nazi's?

I say its a resounding NO!!!

While the UK did have the power to not be invaded by the Germans, it also flat out didnt have the power to invade France or Italy.

Only the US had the resources necessary to enable the allies to beat the Germans. In fact, without the US getting involved in the European war, the Germans would have fought the Russians to a draw, or maybe even with some luck, beat them.

The facts are clear, the US saved Europe from Russian or German domination

Click to expand...

_[/I]

I think that you syscom3 are so wrong in this quote. England were actuallay pushing the italians out pf egypt like that person PLAN D siad and i agreee with him england had its empire on Germany wwere in no postion to attack england and it already had failed like the battle oof brtian were the english kicked ass. Also the poor conditions and the brave rusians kept the germans to a halt and the germans had bad morale and were losing in the east and briatin had aid form its empire and many supplies and men from places like india and south africa. 

The geramns also were finding it hard to control the conquered contries like france and demark and norway. So no the americians did not save europe at all but we are greatful fot the aid recive dand the americas input in the war.
but i fell englan would have prevailed with the largest empire ever seen were the sun never sets over the english empire. :


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 3, 2007)

Jonathan Garstin said:


> [/I]
> 
> I think that you syscom3 are so wrong in this quote. England were actuallay pushing the italians out pf egypt like that person PLAN D siad and i agreee with him england had its empire on Germany wwere in no postion to attack england and it already had failed like the battle oof brtian were the english kicked ass. Also the poor conditions and the brave rusians kept the germans to a halt and the germans had bad morale and were losing in the east and briatin had aid form its empire and many supplies and men from places like india and south africa.
> 
> ...



So the bottom line is still this:

England is too strong to be invaded by Germany
The UK is strong enough to win in Africa, maybe even Sicily.
The UK is not strong enough to invade Europe.
The War ends in 1945 with the Russians on the Rhine or in 1944 with the Germans at the Urals.

End result is the same. Without the US material and manpower, Germany or Russia dominates Europe.


----------



## marinefjk (Jun 10, 2007)

With response to the Germans win Europes speaks German, and Russia wins Europe Speaks Russian comment, actually, England wins outright as it is the English Language which is most widespread globally. You all seem to forget is was called "World War 2". 

England Wins. Thank you very much.


----------



## marinefjk (Jun 10, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> So the bottom line is still this:
> 
> England is too strong to be invaded by Germany
> The UK is strong enough to win in Africa, maybe even Sicily.
> ...



I agree. Thanks to the US helping out, we still speak English. But, I think the US needs to seriously remind itself it was a World War. And it wasnt just the US who saved Europe, what about Australia? Canada? New Zealand? All free countries, and they also sent alot of their boys over to help.

So i finalise my statement by saying, Thanks USA for coming along when the war was almost over, you cant rewite history. But I guess you can make good "fictional" movies over in Hollywood.

Seriously though, I am a serving Royal Marine, and I have served in Iraq with fellow US Marines, and I have to be honest, the United States is the only country I would happilly go to battle alongside its boys! 

US UK keeping the world free! Support our troops.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 10, 2007)

marinefjk said:


> I agree. Thanks to the US helping out, we still speak English. But, I think the US needs to seriously remind itself it was a World War. And it wasnt just the US who saved Europe, what about Australia? Canada? New Zealand? All free countries, and they also sent alot of their boys over to help.
> 
> So i finalise my statement by saying, Thanks USA for coming along when the war was almost over, you cant rewite history. But I guess you can make good "fictional" movies over in Hollywood.
> 
> ...



The bottom line is still this:

The US entered the war in 1942, with still three years left.

The US provided the decisive edge in material and manpower to win.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2007)

marinefjk said:


> So i finalise my statement by saying, Thanks USA for coming along when the war was almost over, you cant rewite history. But I guess you can make good "fictional" movies over in Hollywood.



Huh? How was the war almost over? I think you need to learn your history a bit more...



marinefjk said:


> Seriously though, I am a serving Royal Marine, and I have served in Iraq with fellow US Marines, and I have to be honest, the United States is the only country I would happilly go to battle alongside its boys!
> 
> US UK keeping the world free! Support our troops.



Where in Iraq did you serve? I was a Blackhawk Crewchief in the US Army based out of Tikrit in 2004.


----------



## kjcarey2003 (Nov 2, 2007)

Hitler was doomed the minute he decided to invade Poland (although he was justified to some degree). What it did was two fold. It dragged France (useless) and Britain into war against Germany (although interestingly, those two countries did not declare war agaist the Soviet Union when she took the other 2/3 of Poland, which makes me suspect what kind of deals they had with Stalin at the time) and it removed a buffer country between Germany and the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union was going to invade and Hitler knew that, so it was in his best interest to go on the offensive. However, he had no chance as the Soviets just had to many resources at their disposal. He was doomed no matter what he did.

The US involvement in the war did not change the inevitable outcome (the defeat of Germany by the Soviets). What is did do was keep the Soviets from rolling over the rest of Europe at the end of the war. I believe the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan days apart was more to give Stalin pause by showing exactly how brutal the US could be than to defeat an already smashed Japan which was looking for a way to surrender.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 2, 2007)

kjcarey2003 said:


> I believe the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan days apart was more to give Stalin pause by showing exactly how brutal the US could be than to defeat an already smashed Japan which was looking for a way to surrender.


8000 aircraft and a 1.5 million man army with a military leadership that wanted at least one last great battle to save face - Japan was far from looking for a way to surrender.


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 2, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 8000 aircraft and a 1.5 million man army with a military leadership that wanted at least one last great battle to save face - Japan was far from looking for a way to surrender.



8000 Aircraft? How many with fuel, maintenance, airfields and pilots? Sure, they could have lashed out with a few waves of violence but it could have not been sustained. A death gasp.

I wouldn't say they were looking for a way to surrender.. I'd say they were looking for unified leadership. Something to believe in. The populace would have followed a divine, honorable, righteous cause. 

At the end, Japan's leadership was in doubt. Loyalists, Hardliners, Army and Navy all vied for power. We are fortunate that it ended up the way it did. A-Bombs or not... the carnage may have continued. If the hard liners instilled power, our M-1's would be shattering bamboo spears till 1947.

.


----------



## The Basket (Nov 3, 2007)

A point. Hitler invaded Poland because he wanted to. No justification or need...just because he took the fancy.

America was vital to the free world by saving the free world. I have no doubts on that score. It was American production and technology which was far better than The British Empire that was a deciding factor.

The English Empire never existed.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 3, 2007)

The English Empire did exist; learn the history of the British Isles. Before the 'British Empire' there were three English Empires on the British Isles. And the 'British Empire' was created by English force; Wales and Scotland didn't join without persuasion.


----------



## Haztoys (Nov 3, 2007)

I'm an American so I'm gonig to stay clear of this one..But..

The UK did still have a Empire at that time ...But the only thing "I" see that would of made a mess of it all is getting the raw materials to the right place to be turned into the tools of war...The US had all the raw materials in one place ..And one of the big thing the US brought to the table was transportation..Like Japan and the UK the island thing is a set back at times like this..Man the USA was transportation for the Allies ..Just think of no C-47s or Liberty Ships... 

And Hitler felt that Poland was part of Germany..And at one time taken..??.As in alot of Mexicans think of the south west of the USA should be taken back by Mexico... ..Turkey and Iraq ..And so on and so on...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> 8000 Aircraft? How many with fuel, maintenance, airfields and pilots? Sure, they could have lashed out with a few waves of violence but it could have not been sustained. A death gasp.


And that's what they were hoping for...


----------



## Negative Creep (Nov 3, 2007)

Even if our Empire had the materials and workforce to reach American levels of production, a major difference was that American factories could work with impunity with no threats from bombing or invasion. Without American help I doubt we'd have had the manpower to launch the Normandy campaign. Perhaps Italy and then Southern France before a peace deal. On a similar vein, I'm not sure if the Russians could have turned it around without lend lease equipment.


----------



## WARSPITER (Nov 5, 2007)

The soviets Union would not have had the ability to concentrate on military production as they did without the support of the US and Britain. The US supplied millions of pairs of boots. This was vital in Russian conditions and allowed them to use their production capability on planes and armaments. Add to this the huge number of transport vehicles and other equipment supplied and it means a lot of T34's.

Without this massive support in the non armament area the Soviet war machine would have been missing a lot of vital cogs.

Even in my country we are grateful for the help we received from the US in the war. The Battle of the Coral Sea was supposedly a joint effort but most of the work done was by the US navy. 

Although Australian ground troops had the first real success against the Japanese army in New Guinea, it was still a combined effort thanks to the US Air force and Navy for cover and supplies.


----------



## Instal (Nov 6, 2007)

Sys while I disagree with you that the Commonwealth could not have prevailed I have to commend you on your defence of your position. You have been unflappable under continual bombardment. Save a few comments that were nothing less than a blatent attempt to P.O. those who disagree, you have defended your position as well as Rommel in the later part of the African Campaign. Unfortunately for you the result is the same. The Commonwealth would have never stopped untill Hitlers Evil was wiped from the face of the earth no matter how long it took. As always Mr. Churchill said it best.

"We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. Let that be realised; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal. But I take up my task with buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. At this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I say, "come then, let us go forward together with our united strength."

All the bantering back and forth about numbers and quantities are meaningless. It is a peoples resolve that determines the outcome of war. The contributions of the U.S. during WW2 are enormous and greatly appreciated by all. However the U.S. did not save Europe. It saved itself by being involved (albeit a bit late in my opinion) in a war that had to be fought. Any country living in a world that included Hitler would suffer in ways that are unthinkable.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 6, 2007)

It still stands.

Without the US, the Commonwealth and USSR could only hope for an armistice at worst, or a Russian victory at best.

With the US, victory was assured.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Nov 6, 2007)

I would like to make a correction...U.S. did not save Europe...just Western Europe...


----------



## WARSPITER (Nov 6, 2007)

I agree with syscom on this. Even a Russian victory was unlikely without the massive supply support the US gave. As I posted earlier, the Russian military output would not have been anything like it was without the non armament supplies from the US.

In this respect, the war in the East could definitely have gone Germanys' way, thus giving them control in the West as well.

Japans' entry into the war was very timely for the commonwealth and the Soviet Union.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 6, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> It still stands.
> 
> Without the US, the Commonwealth and USSR could only hope for an armistice at worst, or a Russian victory at best.
> 
> With the US, victory was assured.




And without Russia where would that of left USA and Commonwealth?

USA and Russia (as did Commonwealth) played huge roles in WW2 defeating the Axis. USA provided the material and air force......Russia supplied the man power, and the space to spread out the German war machine.

Would of USA been ready and willing to take all those dead soldiers? Not so sure. I doubt, without Russia, the Allies would of even been able to beat the Axis powers. The real chance they had over the Axis is the possible use of the A-bomb on the Axis cites once it was developed. 

AT the very least the USA and Commonwealth would of suffered extremely high loses "IF" they were able to ever defeat them. Again the A-bomb was the only wild card the Allies had that the Axis did not. With the A-bomb destroying city after city the Axis would of had to give it up. But with out the A-bomb the Allies (without Russia) would had a very very very hard time ever defeating Axis powers.

Not b/c they could not out produce them, they could. But they lacked the will to take all the dead soldiers to get the victory. IMO


----------



## Haztoys (Nov 6, 2007)

The Russians would of won in the end ..And steam rolled Europe...The only thing Lead lease did for the Russians was make a shorter war..Russia is like the USA...Lot of land and lots of resources..All the things the USA did the Russians could of done with alittle more time ..A lot do not know the Russians do a "fall back" way of fighting ...Part of what the Germans won at the start of the German Russian war was part do to that Germany was a good army ..And the way the Russian do war .."Fall Back"...And with that much land that game works for them..It would of taken time ..But the Russians would of geared up in time and run over Germany and just keep on going east ...Stalin grabed and keep any inch of land he got And could get ..And he would of got and keep all of Europe too..If the USA and the rest of the world would of not got into the fire..


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Nov 6, 2007)

Russia did endured the worst in the war...


----------



## Udet (Nov 6, 2007)

There is no way the Soviet Union would have "steam rolled" all the way to the Channel coasts if the USA decides to remain neutral...it´s become some sort of allied mantra.

Sometimes it´d appear the allies do no yet fully recover from the wild celebration held following the German surrender; too much alcohol, too much ladies, panties and bras scattered all over the place, too many sleepless nights... 

"No matter what the Germans would do or would not do, they in the end would lose the war..."; so easy huh?

Whether commonwealth people like it or not, the U.S.A. is ESSENTIAL for allied victory. 

Was Great Britain essential for allied victory? Hmm...i do not think so...let´s see: protected by the mighty channel, and cursed by U.S. neutrality, Germany and Great Britain attain what we call a stalemate. So Great Britain is essential when it comes to reaching stalemates only. No victory scenario. (Not in the east though; there, Germany slams the soviets even harder for they do not need to station that so many Heer and Luftwaffe units in the west).

In the past i have commented the allies reached the perfect balance of ingredients to formulate victory: the large army of some brutal regime who did not care for losses (USSR); a very large and very competitive air force (USAAF); two large navies (US and Royal Navy); a powerful military industry safe and away from significant enemy harm (USA); an assembly base separated from the continent (UK), plus the armies of both the USA and Great Britain. 

This, however, will not undermine the accuracy and validity of the argument: while the U.S.A. did of course benefit from the intervention of the other 2 major allies, the U.S.A. could have remained in the comfort and safety of their neutrality while in Great Britain new religions, cults and sects are created that worship the Channel, and the Soviets accept German terms for ending the war in the east, losing a chunk of their territory.

The USA is essential. An issue not subjected to doubt or inquiry.

The U.S.S.R. was "not like the U.S.A.", at all...the only nation capable of waging a war in 2 separated theaters of war was the United States. Period.

The U.S.A. was the only nation with the potential to have a machine fully geared for war operating in both Europe and the Pacific; the Soviets were not capable of such a thing...they bled themselves to death in the process of attaining victory in only one front, not forgetting (i) the gigantic dimension of material aid they received from the USA and Great Britain -aid which was too committed to a one front war only-, and (ii) the "front-opening" service provided by the USA and UK which kept a truly significant number of German units stationed away from the eastern front.

Of Great Britain, oh well, i do not bother that much; After the fast and easy sinking of both HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, followed by the fall of Singapore the next year, British attempts in the Far East were timid and of little significance, if any; the tough work in the PTO was carried out by the U.S. 

So, again, no U.S.A. in Europe, no allied victory at all and no soviet "steam rolling" all the way to the Channel coasts. At minimum, we have a stalemate, if not a clear Germany victory.


----------



## Jank (Nov 6, 2007)

Instal said, "_It is a peoples resolve that determines the outcome of war._"


Tell that to the Japanese.


----------



## Instal (Nov 6, 2007)

Jank said:


> Instal said, "_It is a peoples resolve that determines the outcome of war._"
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Japanese.



I can't believe I have to qualify every single word. Given a situation that does not include being devastaded by nuclear weapons a peoples resolve can determine the outcome of war and if you don't believe it ask the Russians about the Afghans.


----------



## Haztoys (Nov 6, 2007)

Instal said:


> I can't believe I have to qualify every single word. Given a situation that does not include being devastaded by nuclear weapons a peoples resolve can determine the outcome of war and if you don't believe it ask the Russians about the Afghans.



How about "without peoples resolve your going to be defeeted"... It sure tuff without it...


----------



## Instal (Nov 7, 2007)

Haztoys said:


> How about "without peoples resolve your going to be defeeted"... It sure tuff without it...



While this is very true it does not go far enough. History is repleat with examples of military victories against a superior force. It is obvious that against overwhelming force resolve cannot guarantee victory, however that is not the context of this thread. The Commonwealth was in no way in the same position as Japan.


----------



## Jank (Nov 7, 2007)

_While this is very true it does not go far enough._

I can't believe Haztoys has to qualify every single word ...


----------



## Instal (Nov 7, 2007)

Jank said:


> _While this is very true it does not go far enough._
> 
> I can't believe Haztoys has to qualify every single word ...



Sorry Jank I didn't mean to sound terse about your post. It's just that things get misunderstood so easily. I am trying to get my thoughts across without rambling too much but perhaps I should be more detailed.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 7, 2007)

_"Of Great Britain, oh well, i do not bother that much; After the fast and easy sinking of both HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, followed by the fall of Singapore the next year, British attempts in the Far East were timid and of little significance, if any; the tough work in the PTO was carried out by the U.S."_

The sinking of two ships and loss of a colony instantly puts Britain at the bottom of the league tables - with that logic the U.S.A had no chance after Pearl Harbour.

The PTO was run by the U.S, but the CBI (Where more Japanese fought.) was run by the British Commonwealth and Chinese. The two theatres go hand in hand; and it was an Allied effort for victory.

Without the Royal Navy, the U.S would not have a chance in Europe. Their navy, while large, was not large enough to take on Japan, Germany and Italy. The USN was largely dealing with the IJN, while the Royal Navy dealt with Germany and Italy. 

Why do people choose to forget areas of the war to bolster... something... in their own mind.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2007)

> The PTO was run by the U.S, but the CBI (Where more Japanese fought.) was run by the British Commonwealth and Chinese. The two theatres go hand in hand; and it was an Allied effort for victory.



Sorry Plan_d, but the CBI theatre was as incidental to the ultimate victory in the war against Japan, as was the fight in North Africa or even Italy. You disregard the fact that the war in was completely maritime in charachter. No matter how many divisions the Japanese had in CBI, what mattered was how many they could supply in the outposts of the central pacific. The US and ANZAC forces in the SW Pacific handily wore down the Japanese to the point where an ever expanding USN steam rollered the Japanese in the Central Pacific. After the seizure of the mariana's in summer 1944, for all practical purposes, Japan had lost the war. So no matter what happened in CBI, it was a moot point if it had an impact on the war.




> Without the Royal Navy, the U.S would not have a chance in Europe. Their navy, while large, was not large enough to take on Japan, Germany and Italy. The USN was largely dealing with the IJN, while the Royal Navy dealt with Germany and Italy.



Well the thread is about the US staying out of the war in Europe. Plus we all know about the RN having all the escort capabilities and assetts to successfully defeat the submarine menace.



> Why do people choose to forget areas of the war to bolster... something... in their own mind.



We were wondering the same thing, hehehehhe

8)


----------



## plan_D (Nov 7, 2007)

We? Have you some kind of imaginery friend, or have you got several personalities? I'd like to hear from the one with some sense. 

Without the CBI or a victory in India, Japan would have opened a vital trading station and reduced it's needs in the CBI providing more shipping, sailors and soldiers for the war against the U.S. If you, honestly, believe that the CBI had no affect on the U.S 'steam-roller' then you're deluded and frankly should be ignored. 

On the same point of Italy and North Africa; I'd like to see what your strategy for the war would have been. The fall of North Africa would have opened up oil, shipping lines and bases of operation for the Axis forces. The Atlantic would have been more extensively covered by Axis forces, and more resources would have been available (air and land) for operations against the Soviet Union. 
More importantly to the naval aspect of things, the Italian Navy would have then been allowed free roam in the oceans and opened a whole new vault of problems in the Allied shipping. 

There's something seriously wrong with your outlook if you believe that the Allies could have simply abandoned the CBI, North Africa and Italy and still achieved total victory. Do you honestly believe that if North Africa and Italy had fallen to the Axis, then _Overlord_ would have been possible? 

Do you know how many Axis troops were killed and captured in North Africa? 

_"Well the thread is about the US staying out of the war in Europe. Plus we all know about the RN having all the escort capabilities and assetts to successfully defeat the submarine menace."_

I wasn't talking about the thread title, I was talking about Udet's comments; and maybe your thoughts that Britain was not required for a victory in World War II - only as a base of operations against Europe. 

Only an absolute assh*le would ask this question in the first place, but an even larger retard would try to demote the efforts of the nations involved as meaningless because the U.S could, apparently, have done it all on their own. 

No matter how much turd flies from your fingers while you type, it's obvious to anyone with sense that the Commonwealth and Soviet Union combined could have achieved eventual victory against an over-stretched Third Reich. Look beyond World War II, and see time and time again the collapse of seemingly invincible structures and powers. 

And then just look at the power of the Commonwealth, it's industrial wealth and manpower. The Germans and Japanese combined did not have the strength to project their power in all directions.

The U.S.A made World War II a hell of a lot easier for total victory for the Allies - their contribution to the war effort will never be forgotten , but they did NOT save Europe. They helped Britain and her Commonwealth achieve total victory in Western Europe. 

But this won't convince, because Germany was invincible - British victories in North Africa, BoB and Atlantic can be ignored so you can bolster your argument. 

Stop trying to bolster yourself with the Stars and Stripes, sys. National pride is okay, but when you're using your nations flag to hide the fact you're lacking isn't even funny.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 7, 2007)

Ouch, snap!

I do have to agree with PlanD, there is no need to try and lessen anyone's efforts in WW2 or to wave your own flag to make it seem like your country did more then anyone else's.


We all bled and died for final victory.......trying to lessen anyone's efforts in that victory disrespects those who died from all countries to give us the freedoms that we enjoy today. Whether or not Sys will admit it.....this whole thread was a bad idea and insulting to every country (other then the USA) that fought in WW2 with the Allies. But really are we surprised that Sys is waving the American flag......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2007)

Ouch. You gotta love pD when he gets on a roll.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 7, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Ouch. You gotta love pD when he gets on a roll.



Yes it can be amusing........


----------



## Haztoys (Nov 7, 2007)

planD..The Terminator... ...I would think by now Syscom3 would know this...


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 7, 2007)

Haztoys said:


> planD..The Terminator... ...I would think by now Syscom3 would know this...



Come on you have been here since 2005.....you know that Sys will never learn. He will post back and argue his points, go in circles, never admit he is wrong, etc etc until he bores PlanD to death.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2007)

> Without the CBI or a victory in India, Japan would have opened a vital trading station and reduced it's needs in the CBI providing more shipping, sailors and soldiers for the war against the U.S. If you, honestly, believe that the CBI had no affect on the U.S 'steam-roller' then you're deluded and frankly should be ignored.



And even if Japan had captured India (unlikely) or knocked it out of the war effort (possible), just how was Japan going to arm and supply the sub contienent? The IJN did not hane enough ships as it was, and with no easy way of getting materials from India to Japan, just what exactly were they going to do? Send the material on schooners? In fact, the evidence is there that without the CBI distraction for the US war effort, several vitally needed air groups (bomb, fighter and transport) would have been available to pile it on the Japanese in the SW pacific.



> On the same point of Italy and North Africa; I'd like to see what your strategy for the war would have been. The fall of North Africa would have opened up oil, shipping lines and bases of operation for the Axis forces. The Atlantic would have been more extensively covered by Axis forces, and more resources would have been available (air and land) for operations against the Soviet Union.



Events showed that the Brits were up to the task in defeating the Germans without US help in N Africa. I would even venture to say that the Brits could have even seized Siciliy. But then, Germany wasnt in the least effected by its loss. 



> More importantly to the naval aspect of things, the Italian Navy would have then been allowed free roam in the oceans and opened a whole new vault of problems in the Allied shipping.



It wouldnt have happened because the germans really had no logistical capability to defeat the Allies in Egypt, and the Japanese never had the logistical capability to sustain operations in the Indian Ocean. And if this was going to occur in this scenario, Japan had to do this all by summer of 1942. probablity "zero"



> There's something seriously wrong with your outlook if you believe that the Allies could have simply abandoned the CBI, North Africa and Italy and still achieved total victory. Do you honestly believe that if North Africa and Italy had fallen to the Axis, then _Overlord_ would have been possible?



1) Overlord would never take place because the US was not in the fight against Germany.
2) The UK had the power and capability to defeat Germany by itself in N Africa and maintain naval supremecy throughout the Med.
3) CBI was a side show. It was the US and ANZAC forces in the SW pacific that ripped the guts out of the Japanese war power, allowing the USN to steamroller across the Central pacific almost at will.



> Only an absolute assh*le would ask this question in the first place, but an even larger retard would try to demote the efforts of the nations involved as meaningless because the U.S could, apparently, have done it all on their own.
> 
> No matter how much turd flies from your fingers while you type, it's obvious to anyone with sense that the Commonwealth and Soviet Union combined could have achieved eventual victory against an over-stretched Third Reich. Look beyond World War II, and see time and time again the collapse of seemingly invincible structures and powers.



But the facts dont support your theory. The war in Europe (without the US) was not going to be fought on an unlimited duration of time. Either Russia wins the whole enchilada for you, or they sign an armistice with Germany and then thats the end of the war.



> And then just look at the power of the Commonwealth, it's industrial wealth and manpower. The Germans and Japanese combined did not have the strength to project their power in all directions.



The Commonwealth in WW2 was highly dependant on US industrial capacity. The Germans had plenty of industrial power to control contiental Europe against a UK and USSR threat. Japan never did and was hopelessly outclassed by 1943. 



> The U.S.A made World War II a hell of a lot easier for total victory for the Allies - their contribution to the war effort will never be forgotten , but they did NOT save Europe. They helped Britain and her Commonwealth achieve total victory in Western Europe.



But no one has come up with a shred of evidence that the commonwealth could have defeated Germany before the Russians were on the Rhine.



> But this won't convince, because Germany was invincible - British victories in North Africa, BoB and Atlantic can be ignored so you can bolster your argument.



Those three arena's were vital for Britain to survive, not for Germany to be defeated.



> Stop trying to bolster yourself with the Stars and Stripes, sys. National pride is okay, but when you're using your nations flag to hide the fact you're lacking isn't even funny.



hey, show me where I said that the US could have defeated germany by itself. But the fact does remain, without US involvement in the fight in Europe, the coomonwealt could not have defeated Germany by itself. The end result for continetal Europe is still one of two options. Speak Russian or German.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2007)

It still stands as this:

Without the US in the war in Europe, one of two things will happen:
1) The USSR will sign an armistice with Germany thus preserving German as the defacto language of the contienent.
2) The USSR would defeat Germany on its own and roll up to the Rhine, thus making Russian the defacto language of Europe.

- The US could never single handidly defeat Germany by itself. 
- The commonwealth did not have the industrial capabilities to defeat the Germans within a reasonable time period.
- Britain could have defeated German forces in N Africa and maintained supremecy in the med without US forces. 
- The fight against Japan was single handidly won by the US. While ANZAC forces helped tremedously, it is still is a fact that when the USN was ready to invade the Central Pacific, nothing was going to stop it.
- CBI was always a back water of the war. In summer of 1944, it became irrelevant.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 7, 2007)

The Poll questions are which language that Europe would be speaking today, 

I will operate on the assumption that the real question is Democracy, Fascism or Communism as political base for EU today - absent US intervention?

My Opinion (not stated with strong conviction) is that in order of probability it would be Communist, Fascist then possibly Democratic.

My perspective of US staying COMPLETELY out of the war has the following strategic consequences:

1.) Japan consolidates all gains post Singapore and Phillipines and Borneo, knocks China out of war (but not Mao) and drives through India in 1942-1943. I Speculate that India either capitulates or splits politically with one side remaining Commonwealth and the other side with Japan.

Japan in position then to drive further west with oil and natural resources secure as well as secure logistics chain behind them.. I would have been tempted in this scenario to attack USSR in Manchuria and move to take Siberia. Steel and oil cut off from east and threatened in west by Germany - USSR in deep trouble.

2.) German U-Boat campaign completely isolates GB from all external supplies of Oil and food for import and all export of war material to resupply malta, North Afrika, etc.

3.) Britain struggles to survive and has no reserves to hold and supply Malta, North Africa, Gibralter, etc

The questions to be asked are: 1.) does Commonwealth have enough anti submarine assets to open and clear paths to and from Med, and 2.) enough assets to stop Japan from linking up with Germany at Suez?

The questions for Japan are what is in it for them to go beyond India to attack Middle East? Do they risk attacking USSR? ( I think the latter as the real drive for the Empire was to control its own destiny with control of natural resources and Manchuria and Siberia closer and easier to take with USSR ''distracted'

4.) Even if Britain holds out, without external sources of supply and material that came from US, would they have enough will and assets to deploy a successful expedition to pressure Nazi Germany from the West? Doubtful, and without that ability would have no say in post war Europe political structure.

5.) I suspect that a political accomodation would have been met with Germany to enable GB to survive its form of local government but would have been eventually defeated/starved out by Germany before war's end.

6.) Nuclear weapons may have still been developed but not by Allies.

7.) WMD in large quantities were available to Germany, in form of Sarin. How would the non-use of such capabilty been influenced by above scenarios..

Last but not least in the wild card scenario of US not entering the war - what if? Japan had decided to attack USSR to capture Manchuria and force the Soviets to a two front war.. this could have been done as early as knocking out Nationalist China or India if Japan elected to not push into Middle East.

Commonwealth had zero ability to reinforce SE asia and would have been limited to assets in place in India and Australia and New Zealand - but most already were in Africa. Australia and New Zealand completely cut off from rest of Commonwealth in early to late 1942 and supply chain to India tenuous at best - resulting in end of manpower supply to Europe from Commonwealth. Canada would have been prevented from supplying Britain also.

In this scenario USSR does NOT probably prevail and the confrontation in the future is probably Japan and Germany isolating US - or consolidating Pacific/Manchuria/China on one hand, Europe, Africa and Middle East and Western USSR on the other - with Siberia a toss up.

In any case I submit the political structure in Europe (and maybe US) is not 'Democrat'.

Post War - even with our contribution in winning WWII, Europe may not be 'Democrat' today absent Marshall Plan and NATO which for first 5 years through Berlin Crisis was hugely US contribution, along with nuclear power monopoly.

Jes my opinion.. fire away


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2007)

Drgondog, interesting scenario's.

But I beg to differ on the following:

1) Japan was essentially a light infantry military. Japan also had serious logistics issues that were marginal even in the best of events. I wouldnt give to much credence to the possibility of them expanding to far beyond what they attained in early 1942. As for India.... well, forget about supplying the troops in such a campaign by land routes, as they didnt exist. It would have to be done by shipping, of which they didnt have. I also give them zero capacity to defeat the Russians without taking massive losses. 

2) Japanese attacks in SE Asia would draw the US into the war simply by the Philipines being in the area.

3) The UK could have controlled the submarine threat to a managable level by use of long range aircraft and more capable escorts.

4) The US would have developed the atomic bomb anyway.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 7, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Drgondog, interesting scenario's.
> 
> But I beg to differ on the following:
> 
> ...



Maybe in time but would enough funds and priority be applied with an isolationist stance? I wonder. It would have been the only way we would survive - maybe.

Anyway, the only way Japan could execute the strategy I just outlined is if we posed no material threat to their interests and I see no way they think that.. but that isn't what the thread is about... so in this scenario Japan agrees to keep off our interests and we agree to let them have a free hand against Britain/Commonwealth and Russia.

Several things stand out in my mind about early part of war.

Lend Lease Destroyers making a difference.

Liberty Ship replacements (volume and time to market) averts natural resource starvation for Britain. Massive supply of food, gas, tanks, aircraft and personnel impossible from US (or smaller scale from Canada). No supply from US means no US airpower assets in Africa, Avgas supplies and bunker C cut drastically to Britain. 

Entry of our Naval power in Med stabilizes surface problem still existing with Italian and German navies and allows landing in North Africa - catching Rommel in squeeze - therby eliminating threat to Suez 'forever'

What does a stalemate in Med mean to ability of Britain to attack Europe and create pressure on Germans from South or West?

Battle of Midway effect on Japan ability to project power all over Pacific

US Sub campaign destroys Jap maritime capacity to bring natural resources to Japan.

I stiil feel 'no english spoken here' is outcome for Europe, (at minimum)

Good to exchange with both of you.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 7, 2007)

plan_D said:


> _"Of Great Britain, oh well, i do not bother that much; After the fast and easy sinking of both HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, followed by the fall of Singapore the next year, British attempts in the Far East were timid and of little significance, if any; the tough work in the PTO was carried out by the U.S."_
> 
> The sinking of two ships and loss of a colony instantly puts Britain at the bottom of the league tables - with that logic the U.S.A had no chance after Pearl Harbour.
> 
> ...



I dunno.. I am also one who does not subscribe to either US OR USSR ability to defeat Axis alone. I KNOW we defeat Japan eventually w/o help of anyone else. I THINK US and USSR would prevail had GB been knocked out in 1943 but that belief is not backed up with any facts that have seen the light of day.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 7, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No one is disputing the industrial capacity that the US provided.
> 
> I agree with you that the allies could not have done it without the US but I am a firm believe the US could not have done it alone either. That is my arguement here.
> 
> If you really want to be technical. Germany sealed her fate when she invaded to the East.



Germany still had a chance to unwind their fate if they had chosen to offer a cease fire to USSR say, just before they were at the gates of Moscow.. then who knows what the outcome of the war is after that?

That was one branch point in History. Just imagine Germany being able to withdraw say to Poland, and re-deploy assets to North Africa to go after Middle East - cut GB off (oil and communication through Suez) while securing their own petroleum needs? If after negotiating an acceptable cease fire what would USSR do from that point?

Another branch point is Japan deciding to not attack Russia instead of US - then deciding to secure natural resources in Manchuria and Siberia rather than SE asia? So in that scenario they are not fighting Britain or Commonwealth or US in Pacific and free to concentrate on Viet Nam and China and Indonesia and Manchuria - then seeing if we or GB decides to engage?

And we are still preceeding Dec 7 when the battle of the Atlantic is starting the strangle attempt on GB.

A lot of interesting stuff given hindsight.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 7, 2007)

> remeber in my speculation I suspected Japan would go Manchuria rather than India and the supply issue far easier there.


Interesting. I have my doubts Japan would do that again as it would have meant yet another country to go to war with. One which had already defeated the Japs a couple years sooner.
Yet, I fully agree that they should have attacked Russia after Barbarossa. The Khalkin Gol battle was close fought even though the Russians had twice the numbers than the Japs. Yet the Russians lost more troops than the Japs. But after Barbarossa the situation had changed and the Japs now outnumbered the Russian forces 2 to 1. Plus, the Japs could now exploit the Sakhalin oil fields! 
It could have meant the straw to break the Russian camel's back.

Kris


----------



## Udet (Nov 7, 2007)

The real issue here should be that given the status of things in Europe in the early 1940s, it was Great Britain who needed the U.S.A. and not vice-versa. They needed the help of the U.S. for the very simple and pristine reason Germany was an enemy to tough and too powerful to deal with all by themselves. The Heer was not an enemy, it was THE enemy. British/Commonwealth army forces were decisively routed and/or defeated by the Heer wherever they clashed until Al-Alamein.

PERIOD.

It was Good Guy Churchill who wept like a junior high school girl at Roosevelt´s balcony.

The thing came first in the form of material aid: the loan of 50 four-stacked destroyers, later on with the full entrance of the U.S. into the war, commencing with the assembly of the 8th Air Force during the summer of 1942.

It is senseless to try to infere whether the U.S. could deal with Germany all by itself; again, it is just too simple: the American fellows were never in such position to even consider the thought of seriously formulating such type of questions. A great white has no concers whatsoever of what occurs in the mainland. Great Britain? oh hell yeah, you bet they were in such position and the conclusion should have been clear: alone we can not.

For the USA it was like I am the Atlantic Ocean away from such mess, enjoying this beautiful land with its mountains, deserts and gorgeous coastlines, oh well, we do not yet fully recover from the great depression, but things are to some extent bearable over here.

Now...if we think of the ~35,000 troops and their war equipment (2nd armored, 3rd and 9th infantry) transported directly from the U.S. that were part of the Western Task Force for Operation Torch, i do believe we can confirm the U.S. Navy in the Atlantic was more than capable of handling business.

Now, one of the Dragon´s questions -and response given-:

"4.) Even if Britain holds out, without external sources of supply and material that came from US, would they have enough will and assets to deploy a successful expedition to pressure Nazi Germany from the West? Doubtful, and without that ability would have no say in post war Europe political structure."

Great Britain does not hold out in the absence of U.S. support. Not in the short run, much less in the long distance. The UK shares this critical similarity with the U.S.A.: chalking up the dead is a truly sensitive issue. Only the bolshevik regime could afford that sort of luxury. Without the U.S.A. Great Britain would never embark on anything such as a definitive push -much less after the Dieppe massacre-.

The response -was there really any?- of the Royal Navy to the needs and urgencies of the Empire in the Far East after the sinking of the capital ships of Force Z and the subsequent surrender of Singapore should operate as clear indication the global situation was more than beyond the miliary possibilities of Great Britain.

After getting uglily mauled and battered at Pearl Harbor, the U.S.A. attained what i´d dare calling more than a come back, and completely gutted and devastated that part which constituted Japan´s fundamental and fibrous central part: its War Navy.

Effectively and decisively destroy the war navy -also badly hitting the merchant navy- of a Power that is an Island, and you have a completely defeated nation. Whatever ground forces such enemy might have overseas are of truly little significance -if any- when the naval means of such nation have been destroyed or hit in the type of level inflicted by the U.S. Navy to the IJN.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2007)

Udet said:


> .....
> Effectively and decisively destroy the war navy -also badly hitting the merchant navy- of a Power that is an Island, and you have a completely defeated nation. Whatever ground forces such enemy might have overseas are of truly little significance -if any- when the naval means of such nation have been destroyed or hit in the type of level inflicted by the U.S. Navy to the IJN.



Exactly what I've been saying Udet.

It didnt matter how many troops Japan had in the CBI because the war was going to be fought and won in the Central Pacific.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 7, 2007)

Udet said:


> The real issue here should be that given the status of things in Europe in the early 1940s, it was Great Britain who needed the U.S.A. and not vice-versa. They needed the help of the U.S. for the very simple and pristine reason Germany was an enemy to tough and too powerful to deal with all by themselves. The Heer was not an enemy, it was THE enemy. British/Commonwealth army forces were decisively routed and/or defeated by the Heer wherever they clashed until Al-Alamein.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> ...



Udet - Eloquently positioned and stated - I have great respect for the Brits but just don't understand with my limited imagination and mental capacity how the Empire would emerge victorius from U-Boat campaign without USN - 

Forget 8th AF, forget USN in Pacific, forget Japanese in PTO - set aside great struggle in East from these considerations and just ask how is the oil and food going to flow to support Britain in 1941 and 1942 if US sits on its huge ass and takes a pass on the 'horrid' events across the Atlantic. How will RAF and RN collectively pool assets to keep import lanes open from remote and critical resources to conduct the war against Germany.

We are still doing war games in Louisiana with 'Tank' signs on trucks to simulate armored tactics in 1941. P-35s and B-18s are still first line aircraft in place. 

This debate is not about US 'supremacy' it is about the precarious balance Britain had with survival on its own island while we were screwing around over the Nazi 'threat'..and we were pitifully prepared in 1940 and 1941 to deal with war on one front much less two.

I know, never uncertain - often wrong in my opinions


Regards,

Bill


----------



## plan_D (Nov 8, 2007)

_"And even if Japan had captured India (unlikely) or knocked it out of the war effort (possible), just how was Japan going to arm and supply the sub contienent? The IJN did not hane enough ships as it was, and with no easy way of getting materials from India to Japan, just what exactly were they going to do? Send the material on schooners? In fact, the evidence is there that without the CBI distraction for the US war effort, several vitally needed air groups (bomb, fighter and transport) would have been available to pile it on the Japanese in the SW pacific."_

I assume that the U.S.A is still fighting in the Pacific at this point. 

If Japan gains India (which was possible) then there's only garrison troops required for the continent; the Japanese forces in the area would be reduced and they, possibly, would have used allied [to them] Indian troops as garrison.

Then there's the Chinese theatre in which most Japanese soldiers did fight. A victory in India provides a southern attack route into China, which has the potential to crush Chinese resistance - not that it's a 100% certainty, none of this is. 

A victory in China opens up land routes into Burma and India - this vision of 'no land routes' is bizarre, and plain wrong. The Burma-Thai rail line, Burma Rd. and Ledo Rd. were tracks through China and Burma used by the Allies and Japanese. Without Allied interference the Japanese would have more chance to develop overland routes. 

As for the 'evidence' of the CBI being a drain on the U.S resources - where's the evidence? The U.S provided less than a bare minimum to the CBI - the air groups that did operate in the CBI had no potential bases in the PTO - unless you want to propose flying C-47s, C-46s and P-38s all from Carriers and Henderson field. 

_"Events showed that the Brits were up to the task in defeating the Germans without US help in N Africa. I would even venture to say that the Brits could have even seized Siciliy. But then, Germany wasnt in the least effected by its loss."_

Have you just stated that the loss of 275,000 men captured in Tunisia did not affect Germany - plus those captured and killed during the North Africa campaigns? 

_"It wouldnt have happened because the germans really had no logistical capability to defeat the Allies in Egypt, and the Japanese never had the logistical capability to sustain operations in the Indian Ocean. And if this was going to occur in this scenario, Japan had to do this all by summer of 1942. probablity "zero"_

So, now, the British have achieved a stalemate in India and victory in North Africa. So, what happens when British soldiers set foot on Italy? Italian reputation proves true and they turn ? 

_"1) Overlord would never take place because the US was not in the fight against Germany.
2) The UK had the power and capability to defeat Germany by itself in N Africa and maintain naval supremecy throughout the Med."_


You called Italy and North Africa a side-show also, that implies that those theatres were not required in the war. Do not chop and change between the actual events and your hypothetical war at will to hide your true feelings, sys. 

If the British Commonwealth has the power and capability to defeat Germany in North Africa, it has the power to deal the blow anywhere. Do not bother talking about losses affecting British moral; Britain was dealt over a million deaths in World War II - and we proved in World War I that we'd fight to the bitter end. 
Just because Britain didn't have to suffer like the Soviet Union did, it doesn't mean that it couldn't take the losses (obviously it couldn't take 13 million, but I'm talking percentage terms). 

_"3) CBI was a side show. It was the US and ANZAC forces in the SW pacific that ripped the guts out of the Japanese war power, allowing the USN to steamroller across the Central pacific almost at will."_

On the U.S and ANZAC only in the PTO - can I remind you of the British Pacific Fleet - the largest deployment of Royal Navy vessels in history. The BPF was in Operation _Meridian_ and supported the attack on Okinawa, where they bore a large portion of kamikaze attacks - as well as other operations. The last naval action of World War II was that of the BPF on V-J day, and the last British BB to fire in action was HMS _King George V_ when it bombarded naval installations at Hammamatsu, near Tokyo. 

The CBI was not a side-show, the Japanese needed pressuring from all sides. You seem to forget the oil fields of Burma, China and India - the only reason the Japanese were there. If Britian was not pressuring Japanese supply in the CBI then they would have been well supplied in the region, and surplus for the PTO. 
The USN would have had put more pressure on Japanese shipping, and would have had to deal with an increased number of Japanese soldiers fighting on those key islands - had the CBI collapse in Japanese victory, then this would have happened. 

The CBI was a requirement; not a side-show, calling it a side-show means it was required - when it was. 

_"But the facts dont support your theory. The war in Europe (without the US) was not going to be fought on an unlimited duration of time. Either Russia wins the whole enchilada for you, or they sign an armistice with Germany and then thats the end of the war."_

What history have you been reading? Wars can go on for hundreds of years, World War II was a short war in comparison to some in the past. And you haven't provided facts, you've just been waving the flag ! 

You ever thought of a potential stalemate in the Eastern Front ? Italy changing sides ? Britain managing a landing in North Europe ? Or even, what if British troops move up through the Mid-East into Germany's flank on the Eastern Front? 

You seem to believe that Germany was an invincible power; there's no such thing. As long as the British Empire was still pumping, Germany's defeat was coming when it began to over-stretch itself or just be simply out-produced - which was already happening in the real war. 

_"The Commonwealth in WW2 was highly dependant on US industrial capacity. The Germans had plenty of industrial power to control contiental Europe against a UK and USSR threat. Japan never did and was hopelessly outclassed by 1943."_

This is the problem, I've said before, you are basing your ideas on what happened - when the Commonwealth accepted the U.S industrial strength as the best option instead of gearing up themselves. This does not mean that the Empire couldn't have geared up itself, if you compare the German industrial base to that of the British Empire - the German industrial machine is dwarved.

_"But no one has come up with a shred of evidence that the commonwealth could have defeated Germany before the Russians were on the Rhine.
"_

There's no evidence to back up that the Soviets would make it to the Rhine, sys. Before 1940, there was no evidence that Germany would achieve victory in France. There's no evidence that Britain would not have been able to land in France in 1944. 

If the Soviets defeat Germany then Germany is beaten, by accepting that point, you've accepted my argument. If the Russians reach the Rhine and Germany collapses, then France comes back to the surface and Britain lands on the Continent in France. Since Britain would already be Italy, and then in France...we can hope that the Soviet Union stops at the Rhine (kind of like how the Allies hoped that the Soviet Union would stop in Germany after the REAL war). Then Britain has saved Italy, Spain, Portugal, France and Portugal ... most of Western Europe. 

_"Those three arena's were vital for Britain to survive, not for Germany to be defeated."_

Without British survival, Germany would have lasted a hell of a lot longer, sys. North Africa and Mid-East would have bolstered their oil supplies, and an opening in the Atlantic leaves the U.S open to German naval attack. 

_"hey, show me where I said that the US could have defeated germany by itself. But the fact does remain, without US involvement in the fight in Europe, the coomonwealt could not have defeated Germany by itself. The end result for continetal Europe is still one of two options. Speak Russian or German."_

By calling all those theatres in which Britain (without the U.S) fought a side-show you're claiming that the U.S could have won on its own. 

I never said the Commonwealth could have achieved total victory against Germany on it's own, I said it could have with the Soviet Union. Even then, given the industrial strength of the Commonwealth compared to that of Germany, on paper it would point toward a Commonwealth victory. 

The fact of the matter is if Britain fell, so would North Africa and the Middle-East. The U.S.A would not be able to operate offensive actions against all three Axis navies, and would have most likely avoided direct confrontation with the European Axis powers until dealing with Japan. The Soviet Union would most likely collapse under the pressure from a well-supplied and backed up German force. The U.S might have ended up over-whelming the Axis powers after some time. 

If the Soviet Union fell, Britain and the U.S.A would be able to whittle away at the German Empire eventually destroying it after (quite some) time. The Germans would not be able to sustain naval action against the Royal Navy and USN. 

If the U.S.A did not get involved, the Soviet Union would be able to hold up German advances long after passing through Moscow (if that did happen) - remember the Germans were pushed from Moscow before U.S help. Britain would be able to hold North Africa, and continually build a larger surplus of equipment and supply to aid the Soviet Union and eventually overwhelm Germany.


----------



## otftch (Nov 8, 2007)

It seems to me Europe was already lost.England would have fought on and probably survived.Hitler wanted Russia and after the outcome, could England have survived.The pre-war European antics suggest no.My opinion,no offense meant.
Ed


----------



## drgondog (Nov 8, 2007)

Plan_D - I still have the nagging question in my mind which is how does Britain keep open sea lanes and continue the fight if the U-Boat campaign is fought solely between UK and Germany in the Atlantic? No US intervention, no Lend Lease Destroyers, no AvGas or bunker C from US and none from Far East?

At what point would U-Boat attrition cause import level below UK ability to in turn build and deliver war fighting material to Med and Afrika starting in 1941?

I have always believed the Battle of the Atlantic was a toss up historically until 1943 even with US enthusiastically providing Naval and Maritime assets to deliver our supplies to you (and our own)? 

What is your perspective?


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 8, 2007)

> If Japan gains India (which was possible) then there's only garrison troops required for the continent; the Japanese forces in the area would be reduced and they, possibly, would have used allied [to them] Indian troops as garrison.



I would venture to say that more than a ‘few” garrison troops would be needed to occupy India. And the again, the question remains….how are you going to supply them when the IJN and merchant marine doesn’t have the resources?



> Then there's the Chinese theatre in which most Japanese soldiers did fight. A victory in India provides a southern attack route into China, which has the potential to crush Chinese resistance - not that it's a 100% certainty, none of this is.



And as events proved, it didn’t matter what happened in China, because the key to victory was cutting the maritime routes to Japan.



> A victory in China opens up land routes into Burma and India - this vision of 'no land routes' is bizarre, and plain....thout Allied interference the Japanese would have more chance to develop overland routes.



And again….. more resources being thrown into a backwater of Japan while the supplies that would be expended would not go to protect the eastern flanks of the empire that are under attack.



> As for the 'evidence' of the CBI being a drain on the U.S resources - where's the evidence? .....in the CBI had no potential bases in the PTO - unless you want to propose flying C-47s, C-46s and P-38s all from Carriers and Henderson field.



The US in 1942 commited a couple of bomb, fighter and transport groups. Those assetts would have been more productively employed in the SW Pacific going after the real danger of the war… the IJN. Plus again, you overlook the ammount of energy and material the US spent just to supply the CBI theater. Something like 30% – 40% of all “tonnage” expended was just to set up the infrastructure and keep it running.



> Have you just stated that the loss of 275,000 men captured in Tunisia did not affect Germany - plus those captured and killed during the North Africa campaigns?



And Germany still had 2 more years of fight in them. Didn’t they.



> So, now, the British have achieved a stalemate in India and victory in North Africa. So, what happens when British soldiers set foot on Italy? Italian reputation proves true and they turn ?



And the Germans send in a few divisions and stop the Commonwealth cold, just as what happened with the allies. 



> You called Italy and North Africa a side-show also, that implies that those theatres were not required in the war. Do not chop and change between the actual events and your hypothetical war at will to hide your true feelings, sys.



They were sideshows. Russia was the main event, and it was the allied invasions of France that led to the fight in Germany proper. You know that, and we all know it too. 



> If the British Commonwealth has the power and capability to defeat Germany in North Africa, it has the power to deal the blow anywhere. Do not bother talking about losses affecting British moral; Britain was dealt over a million deaths in World War II - and we proved in World War I that we'd fight to the bitter end. .....



The Commonwealth didn’t have the capability to project power everywhere. It wasn’t untill late 1944 that the US had that capability, with a vastly larger industrial and military base. Remember a sizeable percentage of your military was being equipped by the US. The British managed to defeat Germany in Africa simply because you had better logistics to wear down the Germans. Its all about logistics…. Remember?



> On the U.S and ANZAC only in the PTO - can I remind you of the British Pacific Fleet - the largest deployment of Royal Navy vessels in history. The BPF was in Operation Meridian and supported the attack on Okinawa, where they bore a large portion of kamikaze attacks - as well as other operations. The last naval action of World War II was that of the BPF on V-J day, and the last British BB to fire in action was HMS King George V when it bombarded naval installations at Hammamatsu, near Tokyo.


LOL!!! The BPF in 1945 was a fraction of the size of the USN in the Pacific!!!!!!! I don’t want you to muddy the waters of saying “we had the last shots of the war”. The Aussies contributed far more to the fight FOR WHEN IT COUNTED… IN 1942!!!!



> The CBI was not a side-show, the Japanese needed pressuring from all sides. You seem to forget the oil fields of Burma, China and India - the only reason the Japanese were there. If Britian was not pressuring Japanese supply in the CBI then they would have been well supplied in the region, and surplus for the PTO.
> The USN would have had put more pressure on Japanese shipping, and would have had to deal with an increased number of Japanese soldiers fighting on those key islands - had the CBI collapse in Japanese victory, then this would have happened.


Why do you conveninetly ignore the fact that placing troops into the SW and Central Pacific means you have to supply them with everything. Go ahead and put 50,000 men on a single island that’s 1 square mile. How are you going to supply them when the shipping lanes are cut? And woe to them when the fight starts and the USN and AAF has a target rich enviornment! The fact that the US reluctantly supllied that theater is an indication even the “brass” in washington knew it wasn’t the key to victory.
Have you read the accounts of what happened ot the large numbers of IJA soldiers in New Guinie and Rabaul when the allies cut them off? The jungle destroyed them. You an send all your soldiers to that region of the world, and watch them achieve nothing when the sea lanes are shut.



> What history have you been reading? Wars can go on for hundreds of years, World War II was a short war in comparison to some in the past. And you haven't provided facts, you've just been waving the flag !


Democracies can only tolerate long bloody wars for so long. This is a global industrial war were talking about. And you only have a short time to win victory, as either the Russians are going to win it, or there will be peace between the two countries and you will have to defeat and even larger and FAR MORE capable foe.



> You seem to believe that Germany was an invincible power; there's no such thing. As long as the British Empire was still pumping, Germany's defeat was coming when it began to over-stretch itself or just be simply out-produced - which was already happening in the real war.


Noone is unbeatable. But some countries are far more less likely to be defeated easily. 



> This is the problem, I've said before, you are basing your ideas on what happened - when the Commonwealth accepted the U.S industrial strength as the best option instead of gearing up themselves. This does not mean that the Empire couldn't have geared up itself, if you compare the German industrial base to that of the British Empire - the German industrial machine is dwarved.


It takes decades to build up industrial power. Could the empire eventually built up an industrial base to take on germnay alone? Yes. In only a few years? Nope. While simultaneously fighting the war and expanding the industry? Nope.



> There's no evidence to back up that the Soviets would make it to the Rhine, sys. Before 1940, there was no evidence that Germany would achieve victory in France. There's no evidence that Britain would not have been able to land in France in 1944.


As events proved in Normandy, the German army was very deadly, and would have stopped the commonwealt forces cold. But in 1944, since the Russians had proved they were capable of defeating German forces, I’d say they had a better chance of reaching the Rhine than the BA.



> If the Soviets defeat Germany then Germany is beaten, by accepting that point, you've accepted my argument. If the Russians reach the Rhine and Germany collapses, then France comes back to the surface and Britain lands on the Continent in France. Since Britain would already be Italy, and then in France...we can hope that the Soviet Union stops at the Rhine (kind of like how the Allies hoped that the Soviet Union would stop in Germany after the REAL war). Then Britain has saved Italy, Spain, Portugal, France and Portugal ... most of Western Europe.


And youre saying Stalin will be so magnaminious?



> By calling all those theatres in which Britain (without the U.S) fought a side-show you're claiming that the U.S could have won on its own.



The only war the US is fighting is against Japan. And the key to defeating Japan is cutting its maritime routes. Once the US had bases in the Mariana’s, the war was lost for Japan. And all the fighting in China and Burma before and after that point didn’t matter one single bit.



> The fact of the matter is if Britain fell, so would North Africa and the Middle-East. The U.S.A would not be able to operate offensive actions against all three Axis navies, ....under the pressure from a well-supplied and backed up German force. The U.S might have ended up over-whelming the Axis powers after some time.



Plan_D, my scenario is the US not intervening in Europe. I don’t care what the potential outcomes are for the US are with German victory. Start a new thread on that if you want.



> If the U.S.A did not get involved, the Soviet Union would be able to hold up German advances long after passing through Moscow (if that did happen) - ......



So if the Germans win, the language of Europe is German. And if you need to send material aid to Russia for it to win, then that means your forces will be underequiped and Russian will be the language of choice for Europe.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 8, 2007)

Bill,

I am surprised you are getting involved in this "chat" with Syscom, all he is trying to do is minimize what UK and Commonwealth did in WW2, nice way to treat your most powerful Allies. Yes that is what he is trying to do, just look at the title of thread.....thats insulting enough. 


Syscom,

I ask you what is the true point of this thread you made.....if you claim it is not to minimize UK Commonwealth efforts or just plain flag waving by you.

Its not educational......its insulting. Syscom you are a smart guy but your total unwavering bias opinion gets sickening/insulting/boring at times. If you tried displaying a more balanced opinion once in a while maybe people would get along with you better here. But then again maybe that is your intent......just to annoy people so they will argue with you. Sad really that you have to try to say something controversial just to get people to respond to you. Is that it? You seek people's attention? Are you a attention whore? I am really starting to believe you are.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 8, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Syscom,
> 
> I ask you what is the true point of this thread you made.....if you claim it is not to minimize UK Commonwealth efforts or just plain flag waving by you.
> 
> Its not educational......its insulting. Syscom you are a smart guy but your total unwavering bias opinion gets sickening/insulting/boring at times. If you tried displaying a more balanced opinion once in a while maybe people would get along with you better here. But then again maybe that is your intent......just to annoy people so they will argue with you. Sad really that you have to try to say something controversial just to get people to respond to you. Is that it? You seek people's attention? Are you a attention whore? I am really starting to believe you are.



Nowhere in this thread am I insulting the commonwealth forces. 

This is what I am saying:

1) Without the US directly involved in the fight in Europe, the UK and its forces could not have defeated Germany. You would have beaten them on the peripheries, but not at the core. Russia would have decided the outcome. 

2) The US single handidly defeated the Japanese. While its true the US and ANZAC forces fought splendidly in the SW Pacific and wore down the Japanese. Ultimatly it was the USN in late 1943 that was so superior to the IJN, that any threat from an untouched IJN force would have been swept aside.

3) The fight in the Pacific was a maritime battle. Anything in China or Burma meant nothing. When the US secured the Mariana's, the war was lost for the Japanese. No matter how many forces or materials they had south of Formosa, it was going to be subject to an ever increasing interdiction of their transportation routes. 

4) The industrial capacity of the US is what kept the Commonwealth forces on the sustained offensive. 

5) The commonwealth didnt have the industrial and manpower base.

6) Show me where I said the US could beat Germany by itself.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 8, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Nowhere in this thread am I insulting the commonwealth forces.
> 
> This is what I am saying:
> 
> ...



You are being insulting and this is how: 

If in a hockey game where I scored 2 goals 2 assists and we won the game 4-3. I stood up in the locker room after the game I shouted out to everyone "you are lucky I played tonight (sticking out my chest), without me you would of lost, I saved you guys". Thats insulting, that is not needed....thats what you are doing here. Guys like that are jerks, insulting and poor team mates. 

1) I agree but do you need to shove it in everyone face and demean UK and Commonwealth efforts? I never said UK and Commonwealth could defeat them by ourselves. I would not.........I would be acting like you then. I am grateful for my Allies help in the east.....not demeaning. UK, Commonwealth and Russia would of defeated Germany without USA help just would of taken longer.

2)Mostly agree but again.....do you have to shove in people's face and try and show them up? USA Allies help to wear them down in your own words making victory for USA in the Pacific easier. That's what Allies and teammates do for each other.....we help each other out......not try and claim all the "lime light" and demean your Allies help.

3)Don't totally agree here, the more men else (for Japan) where meant it was easier for US forces to take each island and less US dead. Would more Japanese on each island stopped US from taking? No just meant less US dead and quicker victories by the US on each island.

4)Agree mostly, like PlanD said before just b/c UK and Commonwealth did take advantage of lend lease does not mean they "needed it" to win.....it just made the victory faster.

5)Yes we did. The war would of just taken longer to win, USA just made it faster victory. Their help sped victory up considerable but the war still would of been won by Russia, UK and Commonwealth. Ending with Russia, like she really did, controlling all of eastern and part (maybe all) of Germany. But UK and Commonwealth would of held France, NA, Middle East and Italy (all or part).

6) Never said you did say that. But you don't have to "say something" to be still insulting. The way you minimize UK and Commonwealth efforts is insulting.........if you can't see that you are blind. Your total bias opinion is insulting/tiring just try and be a little less bias. When you discuss USA efforts in relation to other countries efforts you post with a tone and arrogance. If you were on my hockey team.....you would be on your own.....watch your own back. You lack respect for others (unless they agree with you), you minimize other countries efforts which is an insult to our relatives who died fighting in WW2 to help protect mine and YOUR'S freedoms. Must you always "TRY" and prove USA is better then everyone else. Can't you just say "we won" and leave it at that?


----------



## drgondog (Nov 8, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Bill,
> 
> I am surprised you are getting involved in this "chat" with Syscom, all he is trying to do is minimize what UK and Commonwealth did in WW2, nice way to treat your most powerful Allies. Yes that is what he is trying to do, just look at the title of thread.....thats insulting enough.
> 
> ...


----------



## Udet (Nov 8, 2007)

Syscom:

Yes. We seem to have an agreement on this one. The logic is simple, a world or region power that is an island should always consider its navy the most critical and essential element for (i) survival and (ii) to project power outside its territory.

As you pointed out Dragon, that was the fundamental similarity Great Britain and Japan had in common; it is what i call the island/navy symbiosis. Mandatory when an island wants to play the world power role.

The Royal Navy performance with regard to ASW was excellent; they became masters in the art of U-boat hunting, but without the early and juicy support of the U.S. Navy in that same task, i do not think they can handle the threat.

(Also, before the full entrance of the USA into the war, and after the delivery of the 50 four-stacked destroyers, there was a DIRECT involvement of the U.S. Navy in convoy escort duties; U.S. destroyers harassed and attacked U-boats, until tragedy slammed them in the form of the _USS Reuben James_ getting torpedoed and sent to the bottom with frightful loss of life. This constituted illegal aggression from the part of the U.S., but that should not be covered in this thread.)

A power that is an island that for any reason can not continue projecting its power overseas, failing to secure its colonies and assets, becomes only...an island. This is the situation of Great Britain during the war.

After losing Force Z´s capital ships, the _HMS Hermes_, and cruisers _HMS Cornwall_ and _Dorsetshire_ plus several destroyers and merchant/tankers were also sent to the botton by the Japanese during the fast and brutally efficient Indian Ocean Raid.

Against the Japanese the Royal Navy lost 1 battleship, 1 battlecruiser, 1 carrier, plus cruisers, destroyers, and merchant vessels in a matter of few months...how many Japanese capital ships did the Royal Navy sink in return? ZERO. 

Their replacements sent to the Indian Ocean following the initial Japanese hammer? Mere timid and temporal attempts which included vintage battleships such as _HMS Ramillies_ -which by the way got severely damaged by Japanese submarine action-. Nothing sound, nothing definitive; a brutal difference if compared against the reaction and performance of the U.S. Navy after having too received their initial hammer at Pearl Harbor.

All in all, the U.S. Navy lost only 2 -old- battleships during the entire war: both destroyed at Pearl Harbor. The Navy would never lose a single battleship in combat operations to come, which were many and of really violent nature.

This is not diminish the Japanese which commenced the war as a superbly trained and fearsome naval force; they were good at what they did and slammed the Navy´s carriers real hard -5 CV´s sunk-...with the necessary remark they did not sink enough of them and lost all their carriers during the long process of war.

Nothing the Royal Navy did during the rest of the war in the Far East represented a significant threat to the Japanese.

It was the U.S. Navy´s vessels and submarines which carried out the task of gutting both the IJN and the Japanese merchant navy.

The Royal Navy´s contribution in this regard was marginal at best; the 26th Destroyer Flotilla engaged and sank the heavy cruiser _Haguro_...but this occurred on May 1945, and not exactly where the REAL fight was taking place, in the Malacca Strait. The horror of Iwo Jima was in the past by then, and another horror, Okinawa, was yet to come...and it was -again- the U.S. Navy who did the job there.

Pre-war Great Britain was a huge but very fragile structure; keeping the balance of the strucure was a difficult time consuming venture provided no turbulences appared in the horizon. As soon as the first turbulence struck -Japan- maintaining the balance of the structure turned out impossible.


Also what is all this thing about wars lasting through brutally long periods of time? 6 years is not a short war, not by the standards of the 1930/40s, at all. 
Ask any soldier of the present-day world if he would like to spend 6 consecutive years in combat action with only some occasional leave.

Had the U.S. decided to remain neutral for good, then the British resort to the negotiating table. Germany has now free hand to slam the USSR with all its might and determination. We would have had a scenario very similar if not identical to that known today as the "Cold War".

Hunter:

The thread title as presented by Syscom is a question; i read a question mark there and a question leaves some doors opened for discussion, some might respond in a direction, some others will respond in a different one. I see no intention to insult here; if you dislike or disagree with Syscom´s opinion that is a different issue dont you believe?


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 8, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Hunter368 said:
> 
> 
> > Bill,
> ...


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 8, 2007)

Udet said:


> Syscom:
> 
> Hunter:
> 
> The thread title as presented by Syscom is a question; i read a question mark there and a question leaves some doors opened for discussion, some might respond in a direction, some others will respond in a different one. I see no intention to insult here; if you dislike or disagree with Syscom´s opinion that is a different issue dont you believe?



It was written technically as a question yes. But is insulting never the less. 

Example: If I say to my teammates after the hockey game "I am going to have to win ever game you?" Insulting I am sure you would agree, but it is still technically worded as a question. Much like this thread's title.

I do disagree to a certain extent with Syscom, which I have stated. But that is not the point, the point is that he made this thread to continue his long history of waving the American flag in everyone's face and devaluing all other countries contributions (or abilities) during WW2. Of all people I would think you and Soren would agree, after all you two argue with him endlessly (about Germany and USA abilities during the war).


----------



## drgondog (Nov 8, 2007)

Hunter - I like to think I am a fact based debater, in which there are facts, opinions based on facts and opinions. I try to stick with the first two as the last position is easily assaulted?

Thanks for recognizing that I was not being confrontational nor arguing a position of US uber Alles - jes asking questions that were relevant to the thread


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 8, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Hunter - I like to think I am a fact based debater, in which there are facts, opinions based on facts and opinions. I try to stick with the first two as the last position is easily assaulted?
> 
> Thanks for recognizing that I was not being confrontational nor arguing a position of US uber Alles - jes asking questions that were relevant to the thread



Ok.

I see now you were asking questions relevant to this thread.....that is not the problem in my eyes. You were looking at the thread from a objective view which is fine. But could you have done that if you were from a country that Syscom is devaluing with his thread and comments? See my point? I have family who died fighting in WW2 and I take offense to the fact that Syscom is down playing their role in WW2. Calling their efforts a "side show" and "minor".

This thread itself is the problem and the person who started it and why he started it......thats the problem. A good debater does not have to use a negative to prove a positive. Meaning he does not have to devalue other countries contributions while showing his own countries contributions.


----------



## Airborne (Nov 8, 2007)

There is a factor here that would have been the deciding one.
If the US had stayed in the Pacific to fight and ultimately beat the Japanese, the British and the Commonwealth [Aust Canada, NZ etc] together with Russia could have maintained the mid forties status quo until the US attained nuclear weapons.
After dropping two on Japan to bring the Pacific war to an end, the US could have bought such overwhelming pressure to bear on the Nazis with this nuclear threat that they could have been forced a surrender.

Now, let me say here that I do not for one moment think that the US would have nuked Germany, just the unknown threat after the Japan nukes would have done it.
It is one thing to nuke Asians, but another to nuke western civilization. [Smile]
So Eagle, I believe that the US would have saved Europe by default anyway if their military might hadn't done the job by 1945 to save it from an even worst fate. Stalin.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 8, 2007)

Lets make one thing clear.

Just because a soldier or country fights a battle courageously, it doesnt mean the battle was strategically important.

Yes, the commonwealth troops fought bravely in the CBI. But it was still a side show anyway you look at it.

Yes, the US troops fought bravely in the Aleutions. But how did that materially effect the course of the war?

I dare anyone here to show me where I said that commonwealth troops fought poorly.

And I would like someone to show me where the massive industrial plants, mills, and shipyards outside of the UK were located, so all of these hypothetical commonwealth divisions are going to be equiped and supplied without extensive US support.


----------



## Airborne (Nov 8, 2007)

The problem Syscom, you haven't made it clear at all.
Please tell us again. What point are you making.

The only basic points I have made is that US help was needed to finish the job in Europe against Hitler and then halt Stalin.

Both England and Russia were exhausted,


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 8, 2007)

Airborne said:


> needed to finish the job in Europe and halt Stalin.



Thats the point.

Without the US involvement in Europe, either the Germans or Russians win.

In the Pacific, we won it hands down alone.

Nowhere did say the US could beat Germany by itself.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 8, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Lets make one thing clear.
> 
> Just because a soldier or country fights a battle courageously, it doesnt mean the battle was strategically important.
> 
> ...



Forget it Syscom you just don't get it and unlike you I do not have limitless levels of patience. If you don't get it by now you never will. I am done explaining it over and over again to you.


----------



## Bernhart (Nov 8, 2007)

US won it alone? What aboutthe Chinese, Philipinos, Australians, New Zealanders, s, Canadians, Dutch, Indians to name several thousand.


----------



## Bernhart (Nov 8, 2007)

also web page listing Canadas industial contributions to war effort

Canada at War - Page: WWII: Canadian War Industry


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 8, 2007)

Bernhart said:


> also web page listing Canadas industial contributions to war effort
> 
> Canada at War - Page: WWII: Canadian War Industry



Cool link. But a word of advice don't bother with this argument, you will just be wasting your time.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 9, 2007)

Bernhart said:


> US won it alone? What aboutthe Chinese, Philipinos, Australians, New Zealanders, s, Canadians, Dutch, Indians to name several thousand.



Chinese: They fought amongst themselves more often than the Japanese. Contribution to the fight in the Pacific was negligible.

Philipino's: Contribution ended with the occupation of the PI in 1942. Contributed a lot when the US returned in 1944, but by then, the war was lost by Japan.

ANZAC. Immense contribution in the SW Pacific, but was of no strategic significance after the Summer of 1944 when the war shifted northwards. But even if by fate there were no allied response to Japan's advance in the SW Pacific in 1942, the USN was going to defeat the IJN in the Central Pacific in late 1943/Early 1944.

Dutch and Canadian contribution in the Pacific was zero.

Indian: Fought bravely against the IJA in a backwater of the war with no strategic significance.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 9, 2007)

Bernhart said:


> also web page listing Canadas industial contributions to war effort
> 
> Canada at War - Page: WWII: Canadian War Industry



Interesting statistics. But it still was only a drop in the bucket compared to the US production. The Canadian production was not enough to offset the US Contribution, and considering Canada was the more industrialized of the other two big commonwealth countries. S Africa and Australia.

Look at the naval production. Only four destroyers. 410 cargo ships? Far from what was needed. Aircraft production? 16,418 aircraft. Impressive for a country of its size, but again far too few for what would be needed.

Canada only had 11 million people which did have economic and military limitations.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 9, 2007)

Did the US save (Western) Europe? Yes no doubt about that, so Syscom is right about that.
Did the Commenwealth save Western Europe? Yes, also no doubt about it.
What language would I speak if it wasn't for the US saving europe? My own (dutch) the polish still speak polish instead of Russian, so the question was not a very intelligent one 
For the rest, this discussion is quite ridculous.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 9, 2007)

Marcel said:


> .....
> What language would I speak if it wasn't for the US saving europe? My own (dutch) the polish still speak polish instead of Russian, so the question was not a very intelligent one
> For the rest, this discussion is quite ridculous.



Marcel, when we say what language would be spoken in Europe after a German or Russian victory is just a play on words.

Of course you would speak your own national language. But the 2nd language you would need to learn was either German or Russian.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 9, 2007)

Bernhart said:


> US won it alone? What aboutthe Chinese, Philipinos, Australians, New Zealanders, s, Canadians, Dutch, Indians to name several thousand.



Nobody here has ever said that. Go back and read all the posts.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 9, 2007)

I can't be bothered to go back and forth quoting all the little bits, because this is getting tedious.

I never stated that the BPF was as big as the U.S Pacific Fleet; I recognise that it was a fraction of the size. I was making it clear to your blind mind that the British had a presence in the Pacific and aided the U.S there. As much as you might not appreciate it, I'm sure a lot of American soldiers and sailors appreciated a British presence in the Pacific. 


A European war without the U.S would have seen Britain in Italy and the Soviet Union on the Rhine (most likely scenario). If that was the case Western Europe would be hoping that the Soviet Union didn't continue; like the Western Allies did in real life.
I'm sure everyone is aware what would have happened if the Soviet Union had continued in 1945 and smashed their way through Western lines; no one was going to stop it in a hurry. And personally I believe that Stalin would have stopped at Germany - the war had a large effect on him and the nation.

On the industrial point, stop comparing the British Commonwealth in 1944 to the U.S in 1944 - that's a mute point. It would be British Commonwealth after gearing up against Germany, which would have the largest industry? 

You seem to be completely lacking of any clue; there's no side-shows in war. All points are pressure for the enemies resources and forces, in a war of attrition these "side-shows" are important to whittle away at the enemy. If these areas were unimportant then the Allies would not have made attempts on them, nor would the Axis. 

And 275,000 men lost in Africa (at least) and the Germans had two years left of fighting ... Britain collapses, Germany still has those 275,000 men and their tanks, I wonder how Stalingrad would have turned out if Germany had those men and that material to relieve it after the encirclement. 

You're boring, and the fact that you stated a loss of 275,000 men had no affect on the German war effort says it all ... do you know how many were lost at Stalingrad, sys, that turning point in the war? 300,000, a simple 25,000 more, did that not have an effect on the German war effort?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 9, 2007)

plan_D said:


> You're boring, and the fact that you stated a loss of 275,000 men had no affect on the German war effort says it all ... do you know how many were lost at Stalingrad, sys, that turning point in the war? 300,000, a simple 25,000 more, did that not have an effect on the German war effort?



Actually more if you count the captured. Total German casualties for Stalingrad were about 740,000 killed or wounded and 110,000 captured. My grandfather was one of the wounded.

While I agree that an allied victory was not going to happen without the US (nor could the US defeat the Axis alone without England and Russia) I do have to agree with pD on what he is saying.

All of those soldiers fighting in the CBI and other locations in the Pacific were holding up Japanese troops that Japan could have used in other locations against the US.

Same can be said for N. Africa. Those German troops that were killed, wounded and captured were not fighting in Western France or in Russia.

Those troops could have made the difference between allied or axis victory.

Moral of the story:

*It was an allied victory and all sides played a major role.*


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 9, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> A.
> 
> Moral of:
> 
> *It was an allied victory and all sides played a major role.*



Exactly......whats the need in trying to determine who had a fractional more to do with victory in real world and then trying to guess who could of done what in the fictional world. We all fought together, bled together and died together. We should all thank each other for a job well done. We all played different roles during the war, not always b/c we could not do another role but that was what we decided to do at the time for the greater good of the alliance. A great part of what role we played had to do with timing and where our country was located.

I just don't see an educational value or any value in trying to determine who was the "MVP" for the Allies. Team effort = team victory. The Allies worked together better as Allies/partners which helped guarantee victory over the Axis. After all what hurt Germany most was fighting on several fronts spreading their formidable war machine out. A war machine that no single country could defeat I might add. So all those "side shows" most definitely played a big role in defeating the Axis powers.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 9, 2007)

It's like saying the USA (Anaheim) won the Stanley Cup (even though there were more Canadian citizens on the Ducks than the Ottawa Senators).


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 9, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It's like saying the USA (Anaheim) won the Stanley Cup (even though there were more Canadian citizens on the Ducks than the Ottawa Senators).



Exactly


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 9, 2007)

plan_D said:


> .....I never stated that the BPF was as big as the U.S Pacific Fleet; I recognise that it was a fraction of the size. I was making it clear to your blind mind that the British had a presence in the Pacific and aided the U.S there. As much as you might not appreciate it, I'm sure a lot of American soldiers and sailors appreciated a British presence in the Pacific.



You contributed nothing except for a short time in spring 1943 when a carrier was wesnt to help the USN while the Enterprise was being repaired. No combat was done. 

As for your contribution in 1945? The Aussies contributed far more when it counted, back in 1942-1944. Face it, the US deployed multiple task groups larger than the whole of your effort.



> A European war without the U.S would have seen Britain in Italy and the Soviet Union on the Rhine (most likely scenario). If that was the case Western Europe would be hoping that the Soviet Union didn't continue; like the Western Allies did in real life.



Thats quite possible. But the same problems the allies had in Italy would crop up against the Commonwealth troops, and thats the terrain gave the advantage to the defender. And this time without the vast ammount of US material, you would be stuck in the southern part till the war ended.



> I'm sure everyone is aware what would have happened if the Soviet Union had continued in 1945 and smashed their way through Western lines; no one was going to stop it in a hurry. And personally I believe that Stalin would have stopped at Germany - the war had a large effect on him and the nation.



Yes. But I suspect he would have looked at the Rhur as a great prize to be taken to help rebuild. Thats why I said he would stop at the Rheine.



> On the industrial point, stop comparing the British Commonwealth in 1944 to the U.S in 1944 - that's a mute point. It would be British Commonwealth after gearing up against Germany, which would have the largest industry?



The Commonwealth didnt have the industrial facilities to match the US. Aside from some mills, foundries and factories in Canada, they didnt exist and would have to be built from the ground up. And that takes material and resources away from the fight on hand. 



> You seem to be completely lacking of any clue; there's no side-shows in war. All points are pressure for the enemies resources and forces, in a war of attrition these "side-shows" are important to whittle away at the enemy. If these areas were unimportant then the Allies would not have made attempts on them, nor would the Axis.



The wars are fought and won by the strategic points of pressure. Peripheries mean nothing in the scheme of things except for the men who fight in them. The fact that few resources are commited to them shows that the generals and admirals know their strategic worth.

The Aleutions were a side show. The CBI was a side show. NG and Rabaul was a side show after 1944. The Italian campaign was a side show after the landings in France. 



> You're boring, and the fact that you stated a loss of 275,000 men had no affect on the German war effort says it all ... do you know how many were lost at Stalingrad, sys, that turning point in the war? 300,000, a simple 25,000 more, did that not have an effect on the German war effort?



And when did the Germans collapse after loosing those men? 2 and 1/2 years later.

And are you forgetting that the U-Boat menace was tying up far more men in the RN than was lost at those two battles? All those sailors hunting down a few dozen U-boats were not on the ground trying to take ground into germany, were they?


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 9, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> ....All of those soldiers fighting in the CBI and other locations in the Pacific were holding up Japanese troops that Japan could have used in other locations against the US.....



And just where were those soldiers going to go, and how were they going to be supplied when the IJN could barely supply what was already there?

And how are those troops going to be supplied when the USAF/USN cuts the lines of supply?

And then what value will they have when they have been bypassed and are thousands of miles from the front?

Dont give the Japanese too much credit for their logistical capabilities, because it was poor from the start.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 9, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > ....All of those soldiers fighting in the CBI and other locations in the Pacific were holding up Japanese troops that Japan could have used in other locations against the US.....
> ...



That was not the point of my post syscom. The point of my post was that British troops were fighting and dieing in the CBI, N. Africa, and many other places and the way you discredit them is a great dishonor for the blood they spilled.

I agree with you that the war could not be won without the US.

I also believe that the US could not have done it without her *Allies*.

So basically I agree for the most part what you are saying but why dont you try not to offend the people of the nations that fought with the US and not *discredit and dishonor* the military men and women of the allies who fought in WW2 and spilled there blood as well.

Whether that is your intention or not, you are doing a damn good job of it. 

WW2 was fought all over the world sys and it was fought by many other than just the US. 

Just an nice list for you here of casualites by nation that were allied with the US or fighting the same enemies:

Austrailia: 40,100
Belgium: 12,100
Brazil: 2,000
Burma: 272,000
Canada: 45,300
China: 3,800,000
Czechoslovakia: 25,000
Denmark: 2,100
Ethiopia: 5,000
France: 212,000
Greece: 20,000
India: 87,000
Mongolia: 300
Netherlands: 7,900
Newfoundland: 1,000
New Zealand: 11,900
Norway: 3,000
Philippines: 57,000
Poland: 160,000
South Africa: 11,900
Soviet Union: 10,700,000
United Kingdom: 382,600


Again syscom dont dishonor or discredit those millions that gave there lives fighting for the same cause...


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 9, 2007)

Thanks Chris that is what I have been trying to tell him for 3 days.....but he does not get it. Pisses me off.

Above all we here respect men and woman who have served in the military.....he is disrespecting those who have died in WW2 that did not serve in the US military. 

Even if you don't see it that way Syscom.....isn't it enough that you respect our opinion when we tell you are? Show some respect man.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 9, 2007)

> Again syscom dont dishonor or discredit those millions that gave there lives fighting for the same cause...



I never did dishonor them.

I made the correct observation that you can fight courageously, but that doesnt mean the battle or campaign has strategic value.



> I also believe that the US could not have done it without her Allies



The allies won the war because of extensive US military support. We couldnt have done it without our allies in Europe, but ultimatly as things panned out in the Pacific, we won it single handidly.

The ANZAC forces helped hold held the line in 1942, but it was a USA/USN show right after that. 

Once the USN began its steamroller across the Pacific in Nov 1943, Anything done in NG and Rabaul was irrelevant.

And nothing the Brits did in CBI changed the equation one iota.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 9, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> The allies won the war because of extensive US military support. We couldnt have done it without our allies in Europe, but ultimatly as things panned out in the Pacific, we won it single handidly.



While the US bore the brunt and yes you can say they pretty much won it all there were still British and ANZAC forces dieing in the Pacific. That was still part of the war in the Pacific. 

I dont understand why you can realize that.

Good night Syscom, I have better things to do than try and understand how your mind works.





syscom3 said:


> Once the USN began its steamroller across the Pacific in Nov 1943, Anything done in NG and Rabaul was irrelevant.
> 
> And nothing the Brits did in CBI changed the equation one iota.



Tell that to the families of the soldiers that died. They were still fighting for the same cause.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 9, 2007)

He knows what we are saying Chris he just refuses to admit it or that he made a mistake. Really have we ever heard Syscom admit he made a mistake or say sorry for something? Then does that mean Syscom is perfect? Hell no to both! He is being a @sshole and he knows it but his pride will not let him say sorry or back off.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 9, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> He knows what we are saying Chris he just refuses to admit it or that he made a mistake. Really have we ever heard Syscom admit he made a mistake or say sorry for something? Then does that mean Syscom is perfect? Hell no to both! He is being a @sshole and he knows it but his pride will not let him say sorry or back off.



I have plenty of times.

I've admitted the Lancaster was the better bomber of WW2 compared to the B17 and B24.

I've admitted that the German Army was generally better than the allies.

I've pulled or edited posts that were incorrect.

How about you?


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 9, 2007)

But you haven't admitted it here. You are saying the US could of won the war by itself in Europe and in the Far East. Essential what you are saying is my Great Uncle (who was KIA in Burma during the war) died for nothing - you trying saying that to my grandmother bet you wouldn't have the balls. The war was a group effort all over the world by _*all*_ of the Allies. The US provided the manufacturing power, the Russians the man power and the British and the Commonwealth the bases from which to strike from and much of the technical know how. I would like to of seen the US take on the Japanese, the Italians and the Germans without the Russian manpower and the British and Commonwealth bases from which to strike from - it would be neigh on impossible and yes whilst bridgeheads could be made here and there even the combined manufacturing power of the United States wouldn't be able to keep up with the demands for supplies, ships, tanks, aircraft and most importantly men that such a campaign would entail. The US needed its Allies almost as much as we needed the US.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 9, 2007)

Chris, Plan_D, Udet, Hunter, Syscom -

I have generally thought of the ultimate victory over the Axis by the Allies include very important milestones in which the flow of momentum in the war was reversed.. among those in my mind include Battle of Britain, Midway, El Alameiin, Guadalcanal and Stalingrad plus the Battle of the Atlantic.

My question earlier was "would Great Britain' defeat the German U-Boat campaign, or blunt it sufficiently to permit the necessary flow of resources to and from the British Isles as required to continue the war and keep pressure on Germany from two sides?

I respect all of your opinions on this subject - to me it currently is the elephant that sits in the corner of the room relative to fate of Europe.

This question is posed on the basis of US staying strictly neutral (i.e FDR does not win in 1940) with no Lend Lease or other support... I suppose it permits Japan to attack Britain and France in Pacific and be smart enough to 'respect' US neutrality.. 

What are your thoughts?

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 9, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> I have plenty of times.
> 
> I've admitted the Lancaster was the better bomber of WW2 compared to the B17 and B24.
> 
> ...



You have 6450 posts and you are saying you have made a few mistakes only? Common Syscom relax a little on your pride man. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong and if I insult anyone by accident I admit to it and say sorry for it......hell I had a huge arguement with the entire Mod team in including Dan that lasted for 2-3 days and like 12 pages of posts.......I admitted I was wrong after it all. I swallowed my pride when I saw I was wrong. 

You purposely made this thread as an insult to everyone not from USA to try and boost you own national pride......you alienated everyone from UK and Commonwealth with your insulting comments.

Syscom you are a very smart knowledgeable person ( I have said that several times before) about WW2 but you post in such a arrogant way that it pisses people off. Just back off a little and people would not have such a problem with you. We all like to debate but you take it too far, you get to the point where it is insulting. I am not talking about saying simple school yard insults, you get far more personal.....you demean a person's heritage, back grounds and country. Thats to far IMO.

Not sure maybe you just lack people skills in your life ......not sure but you lack tact thats for sure.

I am getting tired of this BS, you know how I feel, Chris feels, Gnomey feels, PlanD feels........there is four long long term members who are insulted by your comments alone.....I am sure there are others who have said nothing (or that I have not listed). I would think you would have enough respect for us by now to listen to what we are saying even if you don't understand it or agree with it.

Do what you want with that information.....I am done bitching.


----------



## Airborne (Nov 9, 2007)

Well speaking from an Australian perspective, Japan would have ultimately devoured Australia. Japan did not have a very good record as to the treatment of countries it occupied. One only has to read about how they treated the peoples of Singapore, China and all the others to see how they would have behaved with our white European society.
Our people would have been enslaved, tortured and murdered like our POWs were who fell into their merciless hands.
Australia had a very narrow escape and we owe modern Australia today to mainly the US Navy and the destruction of the Japanese fleet.

Britain could not help us. They could hardly help themselves with what they had on their plate in Europe and with the Battle of the Atlantic. Britain couldn't even hold Singapore.
Australia who sent such a massive committment to aid Britain in the 1st World War got one hell of a shock at just how let down we were in our hour of need.

After the war Australia lent towards the US and away from Britain for a big friend in a hostile world. We honoured the Anzus treaty by actively participating in any war that the US got itself into.
The actual wording of that treaty says that we will come to the aid of each other if attacked, but that was stretched by us to include any conflict, as a way of showing Australia's gratitude for the help we received from America that we owed our very existance to.

As for the Japanese, nothing has changed there. We do not trust them any more today than we did then.
Their ethics today can be layed bare by just witnessing their attitude to the taking of uncountable whales for scientlfic purposes.

Never forget.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 9, 2007)

Airborne said:


> Well speaking from an Australian perspective, Japan would have untimately devoured Australia. After the war Australia lent towards the US and away from Britain for a big friend in a hostile world. We honoured the Anzus treaty by actively participating in any war that the US got itself into.
> The actual wording of that treaty says that we will come to the aid of each other if attacked, but that was stretched by us to include any conflict, as a way of showing Australia's gratitude for the help we received from America that we owed our very existance to.
> 
> *Nobody on this side of the pond forgets Aussie support in Korea and Viet Nam nor do the historically minded forget what the Aussies did in New Zealand in the Owen Stanley's to help secure New Guinea before the long push back..*



My sons did a couple of joint exercises with the lads Down Under when they were active in Uncle Sam's Misguided Children - Hollywood Chapter. Tip of the hat to you


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 9, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> But you haven't admitted it here. You are saying the US could of won the war by itself in Europe and in the Far East.



For the umpteenth time, I never said the US could have won alone in Europe.



> Essential what you are saying is my Great Uncle (who was KIA in Burma during the war) died for nothing - you trying saying that to my grandmother bet you wouldn't have the balls. The war was a group effort all over the world by _*all*_ of the Allies.



He died for the British empire, of which the CBI was not a strategic location in the battle for Japan.



> The US provided the manufacturing power, the Russians the man power and the British and the Commonwealth the bases from which to strike from and much of the technical know how. I would like to of seen the US take on the Japanese, the Italians and the Germans without the Russian manpower and the British and Commonwealth bases from which to strike from -



Never said the US could take on the Germans, Russians or Italians all by ourselves. What more can I say.

But one fact is undebatable, in 1944, the US so completely dominated the fighting in the Pacific, it was a one sided affair. 




> The US needed its Allies almost as much as we needed the US.



Not in the Pacific.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 9, 2007)

To Syscom defense he never has said USA could of done by itself, at least I never heard him say that. But that still does not change everything else he has said.

Wow I am defending Syscom some what........weird. Remember this one Syscom, put it on your calender! LOL


----------



## Udet (Nov 9, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Chris, Plan_D, Udet, Hunter, Syscom -
> 
> I have generally thought of the ultimate victory over the Axis by the Allies include very important milestones in which the flow of momentum in the war was reversed.. among those in my mind include Battle of Britain, Midway, El Alameiin, Guadalcanal and Stalingrad plus the Battle of the Atlantic.
> 
> ...




Hello Dragon.

Just check this losses suffered by the Royal Navy before the entrance of the U.S. into the war -or, better said, before the end of 1941-; a few vessels included on the list were sunk on late December, when the U.S. was officially a combatant nation. 

Even if the entrance of the U.S.A. into the war did not occur until December 1941, the U.S. Navy had been involved in convoy escort and U-boat harrassing duties for some months; not in the level and quantity to be observed after the declaration of war for sure.

This vessels were sunk either by U-boats, Luftwaffe bombers and dive bombers, Kriegsmarine surface units, enemy mines and even to italian action:

*Battleships:*

HMS Royal Oak.
HMS Barham.

_Also HMS Malaya was severely damaged by German submarine action spending some months in a drydock; plus HMS Warspite, HMS Ramillies, HMS Nelson, HMS Valiant, HMS Queen Elizabeth, and HMS Prince of Wales, all of which took severe battle damage (all on "disabled list" for some time)._

*Battlecruiser:*

HMS Hood

_So if we consider the sinking of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse -lost to the Japanese- right after Pearl Harbor, before the end of 1941, nearly half of the Royal Navy´s battleships and battlecruisers had been either destroyed or withdrawn from service for some time due to severe battle damage. If we consider the fact HMS Howe and HMS Anson were not commissioned until 1942 -which is beyond the scope of this commentary-, then more than half of the RN´s battleships and battlecruisers had been uglily mistreated. _

*Carriers* -all of them major carriers, and not jeep or escort carriers-:

HMS Glorious
HMS Courageous
HMS Ark Royal

*Escort carrier:*

HMS Audacity

*Cruisers* -heavy and light-

Calypso
York
Bonaventure
Gloucester
Fiji
Southampton
Calcutta
Galatea
Neptune
Latona

*Destroyers*

I do not have the exact number of destroyers lost before the end of 1941 but no less than 50 were lost in action during said period.

To put this into perspective, the U.S. Navy, all in all lost ~70 destroyers during the entire war. The Royal Navy alone had lost more than 50 between Sept 1, 1939 and the end of 1941.

Also several of the Royal Navy´s armed merchant ships had too been destroyed, and a large list of vessels sustained battle damage which too implied spending time in repairs. Last but not least, make mention of losses of merchant shipping due to U-boat action.

If this losses are not plain terrible to continue carrying on with a similar attrition rate then i declare myself bewildered. Yes, in the process they too inflicted high losses to the Kriegsmarine (Battle of Norway), but the price being paid was way too high. Also acknowledge is the Royal Navy´s skill and ability in U-boat hunting procedures. 

Of course the presence of the U.S. Navy in the Atlantic implied a great relief to the brutal burden of the Admiralty. Talk about the ~2,700 Liberty Ships plus a number of the Victory Ships -don´t recall production numbers for this type- built at the dockyards of the U.S.A. which proved more than essential to maintain the supply lines between American and Europe.

No Lend-Lease, no U.S. support at all, would perhaps mean no convoys crossing the Atlantic...so the U-boats are not deployed to the U.S. East Coast, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean theathers. Where do all the wolves of Admiral Dönitz go instead?


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 9, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> He died for the British empire, of which the CBI was not a strategic location in the battle for Japan..



Try telling that to my grandmother... He still died for the British Empire for a cause which was just. The CBI was not as important as the Pacific but it tied down much more troops than the USA combated in the Pacific (~2/3 of the Japanese were in China).



syscom3 said:


> But one fact is undebateable, in 1944, the US so completely dominated the fighting in the Pacific, it was a one sided affair.



But only in the Eastern Pacific (Papua New Guinea was mainly Australian).



syscom3 said:


> Not in the Pacific



True but else where the Allies were needed and WW2 was a global war so the Allies were needed to defeat all of the axis.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 9, 2007)

Udet said:


> Hello Dragon.
> 
> Just check this losses suffered by the Royal Navy before the entrance of the U.S. into the war -or, better said, before the end of 1941-; a few vessels included on the list were sunk on late December, when the U.S. was officially a combatant nation.
> 
> ...



I had not understood the magnitude of RN losses prior to end of 1941. I also have no grasp of ability of British industry to replace transports and tankers - much less carriers and destroyers. Was there a 'point of no return'?

Random question - Back in the day, one of my 'intellectual' exercises was to try to estimate the population of Moscow based on estimates of 2-4 days shelf life of fresh food and look at what the surface net could sustain (un interrupted). 

Does anybody know what the minimum import requirements for food was to keep British citizens at 1000-1100 calries per day?

In my own meanderings about the Battle of the Atlantic I was trying to understand how the RN could a.) control the Med and b.) keep shipping lanes open from Suez for Middle East oil and prevent a severe and effective blockade around Britain itself from any direction - but specifically the south.

Further, what would our neutrality do at the Panama Canal re: RN mobility to and from PTO to attempt to regain control of Indonesia oil.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Bernhart (Nov 9, 2007)

now i remember why i stopped reading this thread


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 9, 2007)

Gnomey, let me rephrase it so you can understand:

The CBI was of vital importance for the British Empire.

But just because it was of vital significance to the brits, it didn't mean it had strategic military significance at all.

The theater declined in significance to the US towards the end of 1943 becoming irrelevant after mid 1944.

In 1944, Churchill suggested the upcoming fall offensive in the Pacific be canceled and an invasion of Indochina be done instead (through Burma of course). FDR, Macarthur, Marshall, Nimitz and King all chuckled and thanked him for his insight and put the plans in the circular file.

By the fall of 1944, it didn't matter what happened there as the war was now in the Japanese home waters.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Nov 9, 2007)

Hi. I'm a newly registered member, though I've visited before from time to time, simply to see what if anything interesting was going on. I decided to join this evening only to say that this is a particularly silly thread. 

For the record, I'm a very well traveled person, at least I consider myself to be. Besides all the western European countries, I've also traveled to Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, and the Czech and Slovak republics. Guess what? After 40+ years of existance behind the "Iron Curtain" under the Soviet boot, the people still speak Polish in Poland, Hungarian in Hungary, Lithuanian in Lithuania, and etc. 

Kind Regards to all.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2007)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> Hi. I'm a newly registered member, though I've visited before from time to time, simply to see what if anything interesting was going on. I decided to join this evening only to say that this is a particularly silly thread.
> 
> For the record, I'm a very well traveled person, at least I consider myself to be. Besides all the western European countries, I've also traveled to Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, and the Czech and Slovak republics. Guess what? After 40+ years of existance behind the "Iron Curtain" under the Soviet boot, the people still speak Polish in Poland, Hungarian in Hungary, Lithuanian in Lithuania, and etc.
> 
> Kind Regards to all.



If you had actually taken the time to read through the posts instead of just throwing something out there, you would have seen that he did not litteraly imply that Europe would be speaking Russian or German. What he meant by that is that it would be controled by either one.

Now have a nice day...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Chris, Plan_D, Udet, Hunter, Syscom -
> 
> I have generally thought of the ultimate victory over the Axis by the Allies include very important milestones in which the flow of momentum in the war was reversed.. among those in my mind include Battle of Britain, Midway, El Alameiin, Guadalcanal and Stalingrad plus the Battle of the Atlantic.
> 
> ...



No I dont think they could have.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2007)

Bernhart said:


> now i remember why i stopped reading this thread



And you had to spam the thread by just posting that? Way to go, you could have just stayed out of the conversation if you had nothing constructive to say!


----------



## plan_D (Nov 12, 2007)

I'm bored with this now; syscom, you cannot even read simple posts. I said stop comparing the U.S industry to the Commonwealth industy, and the post after you compare them again as a counter!! I say I recognise the small size of the BPF compared to the U.S PF, but they were in the Pacific - and you come out with the BPF was small ! 

On the U-boats;

Look at the U-boat losses, and see if Germany could maintain losses against the Royal Navy. The fact of the matter is, in the Atlantic it was mostly a British affair and Germany could not hold up. 

The only sensible comment made in here was the fact that it was an Allied effort for victory; and the question was dumb in the first place.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 12, 2007)

plan_D said:


> I say I recognise the small size of the BPF compared to the U.S PF, but they were in the Pacific - and you come out with the BPF was small !



"Small"? try tiny. 



> On the U-boats;
> 
> Look at the U-boat losses, and see if Germany could maintain losses against the Royal Navy. The fact of the matter is, in the Atlantic it was mostly a British affair and Germany could not hold up.



If I am not mistaken, U-Boat loss's went way up when the US provided large numbers of escorts and escort carriers. Would the RN been able to take up the slack?



> The only sensible comment made in here was the fact that it was an Allied effort for victory; and the question was dumb in the first place.



But the issue is if the Commonwealth forces would have been able to beat Germany before the Russians were either knoked out of the war, or won it plain and simple.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 12, 2007)

plan_D said:


> On the U-boats;
> 
> Look at the U-boat losses, and see if Germany could maintain losses against the Royal Navy. The fact of the matter is, in the Atlantic it was mostly a British affair and Germany could not hold up.
> 
> ...



The most troubling question for me is where does the Bunker C and AvGas come from w/o US intervention in the war? Its not coming from US, and Japan has the Indonesia/Dutch supply warapped up, Suez to GB would be very tenuous either through the Med or around South Afrika - USSR in no position to export.

Does GB have enough food production internally? If not where was source of supply?

RN would most likely have to contend with IJN in India Ocean with perhaps their submarine fleet extending much more around South Africa. Does this pressure become the straw that breaks the back of RN?

In your opinion, does the Commonwealth have the collective ability to keep Britain in the war in 1943-1944 as far as import of raw materials - and out produce Germany by building enough transport shipping to offset the attrition as Germany builds U-Boats for same reason and IJN becomes a wild card interceptor in Indian Ocean. 

If all the shipping tonnage both in ships and supplied material that was lost in 1939 to 1943 from US sources, were applied to RN/Commonwealth shipping and material inventories, what impact is that on a.) the sustenance level for food and b.) the raw materail and fuel balance to re-build and fight from UK?


----------



## Freebird (Nov 14, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Explain to me how the Brits (and commonwealth) were going to have the resources in which to fight the Germans and win? Germany was not a maritime power, thus the RN could contril the sea lanes, but not strike the heart of German industrial power. The RAF didnt have the resources by itself to fight a 24/7/365 bombing campaign, let alone provide enough tactical aircraft to support an invasion. The BA? Sorry, but in every catagory, the German army was superior.
> 
> Without US involvement in the war, you have two possible choices....
> 
> ...



Only two choices? How about a long stalemate, 1942 - 1943 between Russia Germany, with neither strong enough to push the other back. And you also assume that the UK has to invade Italy/Germany to "Win"


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 14, 2007)

freebird said:


> Only two choices? How about a long stalemate, 1942 - 1943 between Russia Germany, with neither strong enough to push the other back. And you also assume that the UK has to invade Italy/Germany to "Win"



The Commonwealth must invade in order to win.

The war cannot go indefinatley in the east. Either an armistice or victory(by either Germany or Russia) will end the war.

Germany was far to powerfull to be defeated by the commonwealth without an invasion. Remember, in 1945, the LW will have the jets and nearly all of the airplanes in the RAF will be at risk. The KM will also have the advanced subs which will play havoc on the navies.


----------



## greenblue_4 (Nov 14, 2007)

the US did send some tanks and planes that helped in the russian war effort and surely everybody knows about that. The one thing that was overlook maybe was the US contributions which is in the form of food rations and the millions of boots essentially needed by the russians to fight on the freezing ground. Without the foods and shoes for the common soldiers, the counter attack and flanking manouvers necessary for the recovery of lost ground from the german army would not have been made possible. Hence the German army could have held the lines they occupied longer.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 14, 2007)

greenblue_4 said:


> the US did send some tanks and planes that helped in the russian war effort and surely everybody knows about that. The one thing that was overlook maybe was the US contributions which is in the form of food rations and the millions of boots essentially needed by the russians to fight on the freezing ground. Without the foods and shoes for the common soldiers, the counter attack and flanking manouvers necessary for the recovery of lost ground from the german army would not have been made possible. Hence the German army could have held the lines they occupied longer.



The most important contributions were in the first year of the war. All the material sent ito Russia in 1941 was BRITISH, the US did not start lend -lease to Russia until 1942 and so was not used in the winter counterattack of 1941. By the fall of 1942 the Russians were in a much better position.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2007)

freebird said:


> Only two choices? How about a long stalemate, 1942 - 1943 between Russia Germany, with neither strong enough to push the other back. And you also assume that the UK has to invade Italy/Germany to "Win"



Please explain how the UK is going to win without invading? This should be interesting...


----------



## drgondog (Nov 15, 2007)

freebird said:


> Only two choices? How about a long stalemate, 1942 - 1943 between Russia Germany, with neither strong enough to push the other back. And you also assume that the UK has to invade Italy/Germany to "Win"



How does Britain keep the sea lanes open from Commonwealth to the isles - to import thr AvGas, Bunker C and Food necessary to a.) support the people at home, b.) provision the troops in the field, c.) build more tons of merchant ships than the U-Boats sink, and d.) become strong enough to invade Ireland - much less Italy, Greece or Europe?

These are crux questions surrounding US scenario of staying Neutral. Japan has her way with Commonwealth in Pacific - including shutting off all oil supplies.. Japan could, or might not contribute its own Submarine fleets to cut off oil from eastern supply routes around Africa.

German U-Boat fleets could primarily concentrate in Med, shutting off enough (or all oil from Middle East) before expanding to blockade Britain. Could RN and Canada combined put enough Oil and food and Merchant tonnage to move it - enough to keep Britain strong and active?

The 50 WWI destroyers weren't the greatest and Britain had to spend months before they were properly equipped - but the Merchant shipping and the food, AvGas and Bunker C were huge contributions if US didn't even fire a shot in WWII?

Could the RN keep enough Oil and food going both ways from Commonwealth to support a war against the Axis? I don't believe the combined weight of Commonwealth production can tip the balance.. but enlighten me..

This isn't about 'bashing the Empire' - I know that it took a combined Allied effort to defeat Axis. The central question is whether Europe is free today absent US involvement in WWII.. or even before 1943.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 15, 2007)

greenblue_4 said:


> the US did send some tanks and planes that helped in the russian war effort and surely everybody knows about that. The one thing that was overlook maybe was the US contributions which is in the form of food rations and the millions of boots essentially needed by the russians to fight on the freezing ground. Without the foods and shoes for the common soldiers, the counter attack and flanking manouvers necessary for the recovery of lost ground from the german army would not have been made possible. Hence the German army could have held the lines they occupied longer.


Good first post Greenblue!
Lend lease was indeed much more than weapons and ammo. It was basic stuff like food and boots. But also raw materials, locomotives, telephones, wiring, etc.

Kris


----------



## Freebird (Nov 15, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Please explain how the UK is going to win without invading? This should be interesting...



Ok I really don't like when complex questions are boiled down into Win/Lose choices. This is like the debate today with the War in Iraq, where certain people say that if you don't support the current strategy that you want the West to "Lose". No, I just think that a "Win" by the original definition is impossible, and that a alternate strategy is required.

Getting back to the WWII question, if the British prevent their Island from being invaded, and maintain most of their Empire they "Win". The RN was doing fairly well against the U-boats in 1941, remember that a high % of the 1942 losses was American, on the west coast of the US. The war between the Russians Germany will sap so much strength that neither can win quickly or threaten the UK. 

If you look at the situation from the beginning of 1942, (No "Pearl" US neutral) I think that Russia would still have held out. If the US was not going to help the British, the Brit's might have been able to come to an agreement with the Japanese, just like France was forced to do. Remember that it was US pressure that forced the British to go along with antagonizing the Japanese by re-opening the Burma road and cutting off oil. (from Burma Borneo + the Dutch oil) If it was only the Americans trying to force the Japanese into war (by their trade policies) then the Pacific war may only have been between the Chinese, Japanse Americans


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2007)

freebird said:


> Getting back to the WWII question, if the British prevent their Island from being invaded, and maintain most of their Empire they "Win". The RN was doing fairly well against the U-boats in 1941, remember that a high % of the 1942 losses was American, on the west coast of the US. The war between the Russians Germany will sap so much strength that neither can win quickly or threaten the UK.



No they dont win. You have to remember England declared war on Germany. They did not have to (dont take me wrong it was the right thing to do because Nazi Germany had to be stopped). Therefore unless they defeat Germany they do not win.

England (again this is if the US is not in the war) does not invade Germany they do not defeat them and therefore they do not win.

Eventually Germany is going to get more and more powerful and N. Africa will be won by the Germans. 

British territories and colonies in the Pacific would have eventually been taken by the Japanese as well.

Still comes down to invasion. They do not invade, they lose.


----------



## greenblue_4 (Nov 16, 2007)

freebird said:


> The most important contributions were in the first year of the war. All the material sent ito Russia in 1941 was BRITISH, the US did not start lend -lease to Russia until 1942 and so was not used in the winter counterattack of 1941. By the fall of 1942 the Russians were in a much better position.



Be as it may, but the significance of the lend lease could not be underestimated because the german's did not stop attacking russia after 1941. The german army continued their onslaught right into 1942..1943 and til the end of the war.


The list 1 below is the amount of war matériel shipped to the Soviet Union through the Lend-Lease program from its beginning until 30 September 1945.

Aircraft 14,795 
Tanks 7,056 
Jeeps 51,503 
Trucks 375,883 
Motorcycles 35,170 
Tractors 8,071 
Guns 8,218 
Machine guns 131,633 
Explosives 345,735 tons 
Building equipment valued $10,910,000 
Railroad freight cars 11,155 
Locomotives 1,981 
Cargo ships 90 
Submarine hunters 105 
Torpedo boats 197 
Ship engines 7,784 
Food supplies 4,478,000 tons 
Machines and equipment $1,078,965,000 
Non-ferrous metals 802,000 tons 
Petroleum products 2,670,000 tons 
Chemicals 842,000 tons 
Cotton 106,893,000 tons 
Leather 49,860 tons 
Tires 3,786,000 
Army boots 15,417,001 pairs


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 16, 2007)

How many "Russians" today realize the contributions of the West???
Its true that it was a self serving offensive. It wasn't all charity. It was a fighting force by proxy. We supplied the Russians cause there wasn't a Western front. We fed them but they bled the Germans.

,

.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 16, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> How many "Russians" today realize the contributions of the West???
> Its true that it was a self serving offensive. It wasn't all charity. It was a fighting force by proxy. We supplied the Russians cause there wasn't a Western front. We fed them but they bled the Germans.
> 
> ,
> ...



The Russians have very little idea of the help that the west sent. I know because I've been there. The textbooks from the Communist era gave the impression that the west did nothing to help the Soviets until 1944, when we sent them a few boatloads of stuff. The people were surprised when I explained about the many 100's of ships that risked death in the Arctic taking supplies to Murmansk.

GreenBlue - I've seen the list, I didn't say that the lend lease did not play a huge role, but that the critical time for the soviets was before the spring of 1942. After that point it was inevitable that the Soviets would win, without lend lease it would just have been slower. (IMO) They fed propaganda to the west to make us think that they were about to collapse so that we would send more aid more quickly.


----------



## Soren (Nov 16, 2007)

Im with Adler on this one.

IMO Hitler declaring war on the US whilst still fighting the USSR was what cost the Germans the war. You can only fight so many...

So in short, no, the US did NOT save Europe, Hitler did.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 17, 2007)

Soren said:


> So in short, no, the US did NOT save Europe, Hitler did.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 17, 2007)

Soren said:


> So in short, no, the US did NOT save Europe, Hitler did.



Hitler saved Europe from what?


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 17, 2007)

Himself and Stalin.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 17, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> Himself and Stalin.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Nov 18, 2007)

correct


----------



## Soren (Nov 18, 2007)

Laugh all you want but its true. 

Hitler started the war on a wrong basis and he continued to make serious mistakes throughout the war. Not Issuing his troops winterclothes was probably what cost him the war in the east, and afterwards declaring war on the US, not a smart move considering all the enemies he'd already made himself.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 18, 2007)

You're right, Soren, but he himself was the problem in the first place. 
I think you mean that the war was inevitable and Europe must concider itself lucky for the fact that it was Hitler who ruled Germany during that war in stead of a more rational man and in that I agree.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2007)

Soren said:


> Im with Adler on this one.
> 
> IMO Hitler declaring war on the US whilst still fighting the USSR was what cost the Germans the war. You can only fight so many...
> 
> So in short, no, the US did NOT save Europe, Hitler did.



No you are not with me on this. I never said (nor would I ever say) anything like that. 

"the US did NOT save Europe, Hitler did."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2007)

Marcel said:


> You're right, Soren, but he himself was the problem in the first place.
> I think you mean that the war was inevitable and Europe must concider itself lucky for the fact that it was Hitler who ruled Germany during that war in stead of a more rational man and in that I agree.



Now that I will agree with.

I do however not think Hitler was the whole problem. Even if he had been more rational Hitler would not have been able to defeat all the countries that were fighting him. He bit off more than he could chew, yes certainly. However allied hard work won the war.


----------



## Soren (Nov 18, 2007)

Okay dokay Adler, then we disagree.

Giving his troops winter clothes in StalinGrad and the Soviet Union would've lost quickly descisively. With the USSR down I can't see what the Allies could've possibly done to stop Hitler from taking Europe. And with the USSR under control Hitler would've also had a gateway into the US via Alaska Canada as-well.

But as it was Hitler just made too many mistakes, and that Goering was the leader of the LW didn't help either... (Dropping supplies to the enemy's troops instead of your own doesn't help you win the war  )

Hitler started the different conflicts, he is responsible for the war being lost alone. Had he not declared war on the US so soon he could've bought precious time, and had he given his troops winter clothes he would've taken stalingrad and the USSR would've crumbled.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 18, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I do however not think Hitler was the whole problem. Even if he had been more rational Hitler would not have been able to defeat all the countries that were fighting him. He bit off more than he could chew, yes certainly. However allied hard work won the war.



Agreed, but with a more rational leader in Germany, victory could have been even harder.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2007)

Soren said:


> Okay dokay Adler, then we disagree.
> 
> Giving his troops winter clothes in StalinGrad and the Soviet Union would've lost quickly descisively. With the USSR down I can't see what the Allies could've possibly done to stop Hitler from taking Europe. And with the USSR under control Hitler would've also had a gateway into the US via Alaska Canada as-well.
> 
> ...



Soren I agree that Hitler made great mistakes. That is actually quite obvious. However to say that the combined allied forces would not have been able to defeat Germany is pretty far fetched...


----------



## mkloby (Nov 18, 2007)

Soren said:


> Giving his troops winter clothes in StalinGrad and the Soviet Union would've lost quickly descisively. With the USSR down I can't see what the Allies could've possibly done to stop Hitler from taking Europe. And with the USSR under control Hitler would've also had a gateway into the US via Alaska Canada as-well.



Gateway to the US???? 

Now that is a little over the top.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 18, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Gateway to the US????
> 
> Now that is a little over the top.



Soren, if there are only one or two highway links between Alaska and the US in 2007, what do you presume the soviets would use in 1945?


----------



## Soren (Nov 18, 2007)

Mkloby,

Why is it a little over the top ? Establish airbases close to Alaska and you don't have to fly that far to reach America. Flying from Germany is more over the top IMO.

Adler,

You mean the US (Canada, NZ, Australia) the UK ? Remember that the USSR is out, the front where 80% of German casualties were sustained isn't there, the US is far away, only Britain is close. After conquering the USSR Germany would have virtually unlimited supplies and manpower to power its warmachine, that means no shortage on fuel or raw materials = lots of big panzers, fast now reliable jets, StG.44's, etc etc. So many projects never finished or even started would've been carried out till completion by the Germans had they conquered the USSR. So how were the Allies ever going to win ? 

Yes, the USSR was even more crucial to the fate of Europe than the US UK combined, some 13 million USSR troops, 2.5 million German troops, and over 20 million civilians lost their lives in the east. It was in the east that the most brutal type of war was taking place.

One must never forget how crucial the Russian war effort was to the defeat of Germany, it was like a big sponge soaking up huge amounts of resources from the German armed forces.


----------



## mkloby (Nov 18, 2007)

Soren said:


> Mkloby,
> 
> Why is it a little over the top ? Establish airbases close to Alaska and you don't have to fly that far to reach America. Flying from Germany is more over the top IMO.



I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you were referring to Germany launching an invasion of North America through Alaska.


----------



## Soren (Nov 18, 2007)

Hehe no no. I don't even think invading America would've seemed that attractable to Hitler by then had he just gotten Europe, he would most likely concentrate on the far east and southern parts of the world such as Africa Asia.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2007)

Soren said:


> Adler,
> 
> You mean the US (Canada, NZ, Australia) the UK ? Remember that the USSR is out, the front where 80% of German casualties were sustained isn't there, the US is far away, only Britain is close. After conquering the USSR Germany would have virtually unlimited supplies and manpower to power its warmachine, that means no shortage on fuel or raw materials = lots of big panzers, fast now reliable jets, StG.44's, etc etc. So many projects never finished or even started would've been carried out till completion by the Germans had they conquered the USSR. So how were the Allies ever going to win ?
> 
> ...



No I dont forget how crucial it is. Germany was not going to defeat Russia. They had a chance in 1942 and they lost it. After that it was just a long march back to Berlin.



Soren said:


> It was in the east that the most brutal type of war was taking place.



I am aware of that as well. My Grandfather was in the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front including Stalingrad...


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 18, 2007)

How the hell would the Germans get from Alaska to anywhere . Look at a road map from that era there isn't a single road from Alaska to anywhere . Mind you the US built the Alaska Highway in an icredible 6 months so they could ferry aircraft to the USSR but I'm going to guess the germans would have built a 4 lane autoban . It was the second most expensive project of the War after the Manhattan Project


----------



## Soren (Nov 18, 2007)

So where do we disagree Adler ??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2007)

Soren said:


> So where do we disagree Adler ??



1. I dont believe that Germany was going to defeat Russia.

2. I dont believe that Germany was going to defeat England.

3. I dont believe that Germany was going to defeat the US.

4. I believe that the US played a much larger role than you think. US production helped keep Russia alive.

5. Germany never would have made it to Alaska, even if Russia was gone and even if they had wanted to.

6. I can go on and on....


----------



## Soren (Nov 18, 2007)

Pbfoot,

Who'ever spoke of an autobahn ?? 

I mentioned airbases in Siberia - Alaska is mountain terrain so tanks arent going to prove effective there before any roads are built, therefore Alaska needed to be taken with airpower. The Germans would have to drop the Gebirgs Fallschirm Jägers over Alaska to establish a strong foothold in the area, but they would need constant airsupport as the US Canadian airforce would swarm the area with a/c. 

Anyway like I said, Hitler most likely wouldn't want to invade the US until he had Africa Asia in his hands.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2007)

Soren said:


> I mentioned airbases in Siberia - Alaska is mountain terrain so tanks arent going to prove effective there before any roads are built, therefore Alaska needed to be taken with airpower. The Germans would have to drop the Gebirgs Fallschirm Jägers over Alaska to establish a strong foothold in the area, but they would need constant airsupport as the US Canadian airforce would swarm the area with a/c.




You realize how many Mountain and Paratroopers you are talking about. Alaska is larger than all of Western Europe. A few Brigages or even a Division is not going to hold Alaska....

Alaska would have been a hopeless cause.



Soren said:


> Anyway like I said, Hitler most likely wouldn't want to invade the US until he had Africa Asia in his hands.



Do you really think this would have been possible?


----------



## Soren (Nov 18, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 1. I dont believe that Germany was going to defeat Russia.



Now thats pretty far fetched considering how close the Germans actually came to defeat the Russians WITHOUT winterclothing.



> 2. I dont believe that Germany was going to defeat England.



With the USSR down it wouldn't take long before Britain fell. The odds would simply be too great.



> 3. I dont believe that Germany was going to defeat the US.



Defeat ? I don't believe that either, the US was a long stretch away, it would take enormous amounts of resources to attempt an invasion and Germany would need atleast Africa under its control and have Japan on its side to go through with it. I wouldn't see that happen any time soon after the fall of the USSR, the next struglle obvious being to gain control over Africa.



> 4. I believe that the US played a much larger role than you think.



The US played a truly major role not until 1944 where the bombing raids were stepped up and the invasion of France began - that was a true turning point, one which again could've been prevented had Hitler allowed his Panzers to engage the Allied invasion earlier.



> US production helped keep Russia alive.



Who sent the Russians most equipment in 1941 ? Wasn't that Britain ?



> 5. Germany never would have made it to Alaska, even if Russia was gone and even if they had wanted to.



They could've easily made it there, no problem. Establishing a strong foothold and actually pushing forward from there'on would be the challenge.

Exactly what would prevent the Germans from reaching Alaska had they conquered the USSR ?? 



> 6. I can go on and on....



Please do...


----------



## Soren (Nov 18, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You realize how many Mountain and Paratroopers you are talking about. Alaska is larger than all of Western Europe. A few Brigages or even a Division is not going to hold Alaska....
> 
> Alaska would have been a hopeless cause.



The US Canada would have to commit with just as big a force atleast Adler, so no it certainly wasn't hopeless. The GebirgsJäger were unrivalled mountain troops and would prove very effective in their area of deployment. Establishing a foothold in mountain terrain aint that difficult, its pushing forward which is hard. 

You need to understand that fighting in mountain terrain is much different than in any other type of terrain, progress is slow, cover is plenty and numbers don't mean as much, where'as training and adaptability means nearly everything.

Now don't forget that we're not talking about invading the US here!



> Do you really think this would have been possible?



With the USSR conquered with all of its resources and with Japan as Allies, yes I believe that Germany Japan would've taken Asia quite easily, and Africa was the obvious next. 


Its actually really scary how close Hitler actually came to conquering the USSR and thereafter Europe, and we can be happy he didn't get that far. With the German loss of the battle of StalinGrad the USSR kept Germany in check and was responsible for soaking up the bulk of the German army strength.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2007)

Soren said:


> Now thats pretty far fetched considering how close the Germans actually came to defeat the Russians WITHOUT winterclothing.



No Soren. Hitler's strategic mistakes took care of all of that. The Germans did not come as close as you think. For every 100 Russians they kill or would or capture another 1000 came along. The Russians did not care about there casualties and in the end they would have worn down the Germans.





Soren" said:


> With the USSR down it wouldn't take long before Britain fell. The odds would simply be too great.



Again Russia was not going to fall. Germany lost there chance in 1942.




Soren said:


> The US played a truly major role not until 1944 where the bombing raids were stepped up and the invasion of France began - that was a true turning point, one which again could've been prevented had Hitler allowed his Panzers to engage the Allied invasion earlier.



Soren do you actually believe that? If you do you need to study your history a bit more. US production and aid was a very big contribution way before 1944.

The US played a major role in N. Africa and Italy before 1944. They played a major role in the anti U Boot war in the N. Atlantic prior to 1944.

Even before they "stepped up" there bombing raids they were still taking the fight to the Germans over Germany during the day. Who else was doing this?



Soren said:


> Who sent the Russians most equipment in 1941 ? Wasn't that Britain ?



The US sent aid and supplies to more than just Britian. Come on Soren, dont be naive on this subject just because you dont like to admit the US was doing anything or was able to do anything.



Soren said:


> They could've easily made it there, no problem. Establishing a strong foothold and actually pushing forward from there'on would be the challenge.



I beg to difer. Go to Alaska and then come back and report to me on where the Airborne was going to jump into and how the mountain troops were going to get there.



Soren said:


> Exactly what would prevent the Germans from reaching Alaska had they conquered the USSR ??



Lets see the Bearing Straight as well as land that is not suitable for airborne operations. 



Soren said:


> Please do...



Dont be naive Soren. You can go to any thread where you speak of others using "Allied Propaganda" and you are using "German Propaganda" and I am sure you will find a disagreement with me...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2007)

Soren said:


> The US Canada would have to commit with just as big a force atleast Adler, so no it certainly wasn't hopeless. The GebirgsJäger were unrivalled mountain troops and would prove very effective in their area of deployment. Establishing a foothold in mountain terrain aint that difficult, its pushing forward which is hard.
> 
> You need to understand that fighting in mountain terrain is much different than in any other type of terrain, progress is slow, cover is plenty and numbers don't mean as much, where'as training and adaptability means nearly everything.



Soren dont give youself so much credit. I am not that naive. I served in the military and I trained with the German Gebirgsjaeger. I know about Mountain Warfare....



Soren said:


> Now don't forget that we're not talking about invading the US here!



Your right because Germany was never going to get to Alaska.

Now don't forget you are the one who brought up the idea!



Soren said:


> Its actually really scary how close Hitler actually came to conquering the USSR and thereafter Europe, and we can be happy he didn't get that far. With the German loss of the battle of StalinGrad the USSR kept Germany in check and was responsible for soaking up the bulk of the German army strength.



Soren dont kid yourself. It only looks close on paper.

Yes Germany came close and they had a shot but they blew it as early as 1942.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 18, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes Germany came close and they had a shot but they blew it as early as 1942.



I agree, the first 12 - 18 months were critical (June 1941 - 1942) after this point the Germans had lost any chance to win


----------



## Soren (Nov 18, 2007)

*Adler, oh mighty god of knowledge* Should I refer to you as such from now on ? Seems like you want me to...

Adler please quit the blanket accusations and patronising of others, its a bad habbit of yours by now.

You continually contradict yourself:

1. First you say that Germany couldn't have defeated the USSR.

2. Next you say German could have defeated the USSR in 1942.

3. Now you argue that because the Germans couldn't have defeated the USSR the Germans couldn't hope to get to Alaska.

Huh ??!  

So who's actually kidding himself ? 

What I'm saying is the USSR could've been and nearly was defeated by Germany, thats fact, and this was even without the winterclothes (The lack of which cost more German soldiers their lives than you seem aware of, either that or you ignore it) and with the LW dropping the supplies to the Russians.

Had the German soldiers been equipped with winterclothing then StalinGrad would've fallen quickly, and after that the USSR would've crumbled quickly.

With the USSR conquered Germany would have had enormous amounts of resources at their disposal, and that means lots of new weapons machines would be built without suffering from any lack of the necessary materials later on and spare parts would be plenty. And perhaps most crucially fuel would be abundantly present for the Germans. 

But thats not all, with the entire Soviet Union in their hands the Germans could set up airbases in Siberia to patrol the Bering strait, while the US Canada would have to rely on airbases on the other side of Alaska as only a few existed in Alaska itself, and those few would undoubtedly become prime targets for the LW.

Now as to landing troops in Alaska, that wouldn't have been hard, the Germans did after-all manage to land troops on crete, in Norway and in the Italian mountains with ease. There are also plenty of valleys where'in the paratroopers could be dropped.

I see lots of places for para's to be dropped in Alaska:










Now if you're already trained in mountain warfare then how come you disagree with me on the subject ?

Establishing a foothold in mountain terrain isn't that difficult, its forward progress and advancing against the enemy which is hard. So aerial support would be absolutely essential, both because of the need for supplies and the need for combat assistance in order to advance.

So you drop a couple of thousands of paratroopers and have them establish a foothold to which you can deliver supplies and support. The point is but to gain a foothold on mainland Alaska as-well as gaining aircontrol over most of it. With the USSR down the resources would've been there.


----------



## Soren (Nov 18, 2007)

At any rate this is a what if discussion so its undoubtedly going to be a battle of opinions...


----------



## Freebird (Nov 18, 2007)

The problem would be logistics. There were almost no roads from Alaska down the coast to Seattle/Vancouver. Would they be supplied by air the whole way? Or would they just sit in Alaska? It would take a lot more than a few 1.000s of troops


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 18, 2007)

freebird said:


> I agree, the first 12 - 18 months were critical (June 1941 - 1942) after this point the Germans had lost any chance to win



Without a credible allied (UK and US) threat in 1942 and 1943, the Germans could have deployed enough forces in the East to force the war into a stalemate. Perhaps even to win.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 19, 2007)

Soren said:


> *Adler, oh mighty god of knowledge* Should I refer to you as such from now on ? Seems like you want me to...



No but you are a smart ass.

Smart ass's dont get anywhere and that why most people dont get along with you!



Soren said:


> Adler please quit the blanket accusations and patronising of others, its a bad habbit of yours by now.



Where have I patronized you? Where have I done anything that you have not?



Soren said:


> You continually contradict yourself:
> 
> 1. First you say that Germany couldn't have defeated the USSR.
> 
> ...



Soren go back and read the posts and get rid of your selective hearing and you might actually understand what I am saying.



Soren said:


> So who's actually kidding himself ?



You do it all the time.... 



Soren said:


> What I'm saying is the USSR could've been and nearly was defeated by Germany, thats fact, and this was even without the winterclothes (The lack of which cost more German soldiers their lives than you seem aware of, either that or you ignore it) and with the LW dropping the supplies to the Russians.



That I seem aware of? 



Thats why I dont enjoy conversations with you. You think you are the all knowing being.

Smart ass!



Soren" said:


> Had the German soldiers been equipped with winterclothing then StalinGrad would've fallen quickly, and after that the USSR would've crumbled quickly.



No Soren it would not have. Stalingrad was a slaughter house and whether they had winter clothing or not it would not have ended any quicker for either side. 

Trust me I know I have talken to my Grandfather about his experiences there. *By the way he had full winter clothing.* I still have his boots and some of his equipment...



Soren said:


> But thats not all, with the entire Soviet Union in their hands the Germans could set up airbases in Siberia to patrol the Bering strait, while the US Canada would have to rely on airbases on the other side of Alaska as only a few existed in Alaska itself, and those few would undoubtedly become prime targets for the LW.



With the great range of most of the Luftwaffe Aircraft. Yeah okay Soren. Alaska is really fricken big.

[qutoe="Soren"]Now as to landing troops in Alaska, that wouldn't have been hard, the Germans did after-all manage to land troops on crete, in Norway and in the Italian mountains with ease. There are also plenty of valleys where'in the paratroopers could be dropped.[/quote]

The Bering Straight is one of the most dangerous bodies of water. The Germans had not real landing craft that would have made it through that treacherous water.



Soren said:


> Now if you're already trained in mountain warfare then how come you disagree with me on the subject ?



I did not say I was mountain trained. I said I did training with the Gebirgsjaeger.

Why do I disagree with you?

Because I have been to Alaska. You can get troops in there (I will agree that you could get a small amount of troops, but not eneogh to make a difference) and they will certainly perrish. They do not know the terrain and they would not be able to get anywhere fast or quick or in quantaties to make a difference. 

The Weather would not cooperate enoegh most of the time to even allow supplies to be flown in.

If they got into Alaska they would be stuck. Whats the point of getting in there and not being able to get out or move foward. 

Come on Soren, use some common sense instead of letting your "Uber - I know more than everyone mind" get in the way.

Thats right now I am patronizing. I figured if you are going to accuse me of it, I might as well do it.  



Soren said:


> Establishing a foothold in mountain terrain isn't that difficult, its forward progress and advancing against the enemy which is hard. So aerial support would be absolutely essential, both because of the need for supplies and the need for combat assistance in order to advance.




So you drop a couple of thousands of paratroopers and have them establish a foothold to which you can deliver supplies and support. The point is but to gain a foothold on mainland Alaska as-well as gaining aircontrol over most of it. With the USSR down the resources would've been there.[/QUOTE]

 

Yes Soren you are correct. I concede and bow down to you. I am allways wrong and you are allways right.


----------



## Soren (Nov 19, 2007)

You just can't get by without being calling names and insulting others can you Adler? 

And I might be a smartass in your eyes (Don't give a rats *ss) but then you're a ignoramus in mine.

Where have you been patronizing you ask ???! Well telling me not to kid myself is very patronizing in my opinion! And where exactly have I been patronizing toward you Adler ??? NEVER. The only thing which can be considered patronizing was when I followed your example! I don't call people names either, another bad habbit of yours.

Now give it a rest! I'm done with these silly arguments.

Back to the subject at hand...

Hitler failed to give all his troops winterclothing, that lost him StalinGrad! Look it up yourself, look up how many German soldiers froze to death because of inadequate clothing. At the beginning of the really freezing period of the Russian winter the Germans controlled approx. 90% of StalinGrad, that was turned around however because the Wehrmacht lacked winterclothing and were running short on supplies because some person couldn't do his job right.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 19, 2007)

Soren said:


> You just can't get by without being calling names and insulting others can you Adler?



Thats funny Soren because I really dont call anyone names. I only called you a Smart Ass because of what you said to me. Does this ring a bell:

*"*Adler, oh mighty god of knowledge* Should I refer to you as such from now on ? Seems like you want me to..."*

It goes both ways Soren. I would not have called you a Smart Ass if you had not said that. I know you dont understand why people treat you the way they do. Normally you bring it upon yourself.

Believe it or not Soren I actually like you. I just dont agree with how you try to get your point across half the time.



Soren said:


> And I might be a smartass in your eyes (Don't give a rats *ss) but then you're a ignoramus in mine.





Soren I am no more ignorant than you are. 



Soren said:


> Where have you been patronizing you ask ???! Well telling me not to kid myself is very patronizing in my opinion! And where exactly have I been patronizing toward you Adler ??? NEVER. The only thing which can be considered patronizing was when I followed your example! I don't call people names either, another bad habbit of yours.





Okay Soren. You keep beleiving that.

Its like talking to a brick wall...



Soren said:


> Now give it a rest! I'm done with these silly arguments.



Soren I will quit this for one reason and one reason only. Because it does not belong in this thread.

Now having said that, you will never tell me what to do. You got that??!!!



Soren said:


> Back to the subject at hand...
> 
> Hitler failed to give all his troops winterclothing, that lost him StalinGrad!



It was a contributing factor. It was not the only reason.



Soren said:


> Look it up yourself, look up how many German soldiers froze to death because of inadequate clothing. At the beginning of the really freezing period of the Russian winter the Germans controlled approx. 90% of StalinGrad, that was turned around however because the Wehrmacht lacked winterclothing and were running short on supplies because some person couldn't do his job right.



Soren I know the history of Stalingrad. I have studied it at length because my Grandfather was in the battle. Lack of winter clothing was a contributing factor not the only cause.

Another contributing factor (and still not the only one) was when the Soviets pushed through the German Flank (held mostly by Romanians) and encircled the German 6th Army. The 6th Army had sustained heavy casualties in fighting prior to this and was not able to mount a counter offensive and bust out of its encirclement.

Yes it is true that up to 90 percent of the city was held at one point but the casualties sustained were very very heavy. Unlike the Germans the Russians were able to replace there losses at a higher rate.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 19, 2007)

OK, this is what I see for how things unfold in my hypothysis.

The Japanese do attack Pearl Harbor as planned. However, the Germans refuse to declare war on the US, and "bide their time".

I see the following happening immediatly:
1) The US declares the western Atlantic to be a "U-Boat free zone". For the south Atlantic, the US flagged ships and that of its allies not at war with Germany, will run with full lights to indicate their status. Germany attacks these ships at their own risk for the potential of a declaration of war.
2) The US would supply quite a bit of material to the commonwealth, but not on a vast scale.
3) The US would release pilots for volunteer duty for the RAF and RCAF.
4) The War in the Pacific would pretty much unfold as it did in 1942. The US simply didnt have the resources to begin a general offensive untill the summer of 1942. So just because the US had the materials available, it means nothing untill the sea lanes in the Pacific and Australia are developed and secured.
5) The Brits in the CBI might be better off, as material that would have gone to the MTO and ETO in 1942, would end up there instead.
6) The Commonwealth would still defeat the Africa Corps. 
7) The Commonwealth would still be able to invade and hold Sicilly, but not untill late 1943.
8 ) The Germans could divert more material to the fight in Russia, but I still dont know if it would be enough to defeat them.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 19, 2007)

Thats possible.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 19, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> OK, this is what I see for how things unfold in my hypothysis.
> 
> The Japanese do attack Pearl Harbor as planned. However, the Germans refuse to declare war on the US, and "bide their time".
> 
> ...



I see some chance that US stays out completely if Japan only attacks Britain and avoids Pearl Harbor. Japan not likely to 'bypass' Phillipines which by necessity means it has to cripple our ability to re-inforce - but the thesis of your own thread is "What if US Stays OUT"

I see very small chance that US fails to declare on Germany following Pearl Harbor - possible but not probable. 

Roosevelt could have capitalized on Pearl Harbor attack as an attack by Axis and used the occasional sinkings of US ships in the Atlantic to illustrate the danger Germany posed to us ... and he very much wanted to help Britain and very much concerned if Britain fell.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 19, 2007)

Soren said:


> Pbfoot,
> 
> Who'ever spoke of an autobahn ??
> 
> ...



Have you thought through logistics of establishing a 'strong foothold' in Alaska would be? The Japanese had a far superior navy, close proximity to supply lines - and never had a hope of keeping Attu and Kiska much less advancing any further - when we were at our weakest..

How many paratroops, based from where, supplied how? (much less how between October and May), road net capable of supporting armor? not even today! Germany couldn't invade Britain from 26 miles away!


----------



## drgondog (Nov 19, 2007)

Soren said:


> Okay dokay Adler, then we disagree.
> 
> Giving his troops winter clothes in StalinGrad and the Soviet Union would've lost quickly descisively. With the USSR down I can't see what the Allies could've possibly done to stop Hitler from taking Europe. And with the USSR under control Hitler would've also had a gateway into the US via Alaska Canada as-well.
> 
> ...



There is no solid proof that taking Stalingrad, Leningrad or even Moscow would have defeated USSR... and equally no proof that Roosevelt doesn't have the political ability to get US to declare war on germany after Pearl Harbor... even if not immediately following Pearl Harbor

German and Rumanian and other Axis troops certainly suffered in the winter - but remember the Germans failed to push them out in the summer or fall.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 19, 2007)

How in the world could anyone supply any formation of troops in Alaska by air in ww2? It has some of the worst if not the worst flying weather in the world flying in 1/2mile vis with no ceiling with the navaids of the time and better yet it hadn't even been mapped .Norway is a summer climate compared to Alaska Those paratroopers would have surrendered at the first sight of an Aleut or Innuit.


----------



## Glider (Nov 19, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> OK, this is what I see for how things unfold in my hypothysis.
> 
> The Japanese do attack Pearl Harbor as planned. However, the Germans refuse to declare war on the US, and "bide their time".
> 
> ...



There is a lot of good things in this posting but I would like to make a couple of comments. Before I start I would like to say that the premise I am working on is that things remained the same but Germany didn't declare work on the USA.

1) Its worth remembering that the USN was in effect, at war with Germany from May 1941, when they took responsibility for escorting British convoys in the Western part of the Atlantic. It was very similar to your idea of the USA declaring the western part of the Atlantic a U Boat free zone.
2) Lend lease had started in 1941 so I don't see that side of things changing.
The rest of it I totally agree with

With reference to the discussion about The Japanese invading Alaska. I think its worth remembering that the Japanese Navy although of a very high quality was small and almost totally lacking in sophisticated landing craft. They stood next to no chance of invading anywhere, where there were prepared defences.

This is apart from the obvious logistical impossibility of invading anywhere like Alasca and doing anything more than hanging on by their fingertips to life itself.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 19, 2007)

Glider said:


> There is a lot of good things in this posting but I would like to make a couple of comments. Before I start I would like to say that the premise I am working on is that things remained the same but Germany didn't declare work on the USA.
> 
> 1) Its worth remembering that the USN was in effect, at war with Germany from May 1941, when they took responsibility for escorting British convoys in the Western part of the Atlantic. It was very similar to your idea of the USA declaring the western part of the Atlantic a U Boat free zone.
> 2) Lend lease had started in 1941 so I don't see that side of things changing.
> ...


Glider - all my questions posed about Britain's ability to sustain an aggressive war against Axis in WWII are based on:

1. US Strictly neutral - no embargo of any goods with Japan, no supply of Allied nations with any food, oil or war materials/craft
2. No Lend Lease - no Destroyers
3. No AvGas, food or other supplies from US to anywhere but US holdings
4. No support to Commonwealth anywhere for any reason
5. No support to USSR
6. No production of Liberty ships or use of US Merchant fleet
7. No USN or AAF support of Western Atlantic supply lines to say, help Canada
8. No USN, USA, Marine or AAF support of Australia, Borneo, India, Burma, etc.
9. Strict enforcement of Monroe doctrine but free passage to all belligerents through Panama Canal zone.

Can Britain keep all its supply lines to and from Commonwealth and USSR? Can Britain sustain itself from Med and Far East Oil sources?
Can Britain build enough Naval and Merchant Tonnage to replace losses and gain the upper hand?
Can Britain supply its own forces in Med and Malta and Africa well enough to protect the Suez from future assault?

Forget for the moment whether the Germans can defeat USSR. Its not clear that they can't nor is it clear that they don't establish a truce w/USSR in return for oilfields..


----------



## drgondog (Nov 19, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> How in the world could anyone supply any formation of troops in Alaska by air in ww2? It has some of the worst if not the worst flying weather in the world flying in 1/2mile vis with no ceiling with the navaids of the time and better yet it hadn't even been mapped .Norway is a summer climate compared to Alaska Those paratroopers would have surrendered at the first sight of an Aleut or Innuit.



I've got this mental image that maybe Soren has not spent much time in Alaska and doesn't realize that not only were there very few roads in Alaska, but the coastal cities were not even connected with roads on the coast that would support armor, nor are they in striking range of US until they further develop the He277..

It would take very few troops to hold the Coast and would/should be easy to re-take any location that Germany might accidently take, then Garrison with Naval/Air and land forces.

Germany moves NOTHING through the Interior of Alaska, nor do we do so today except for Bush pilots and transport.

And as you noted we are talking summer. Naval ops by Germany in and around Alaska in the late fall/winter/early spring compares very nicely with Murmansk runs - the Bering Strait worst in the world.

US sub fleet was a.) intact after Pearl Harbor, and b.) quickly deployable to Artic. Nothing supplies Alaska from Siberia or Manchuria or Japan in any significant quantities.. nor is there a strategic reason to do so. Far better to plan a landing around Canal Zone and move North or go straight for LA and Seattle and deal a blow on our aircraft and west coast shipyards.


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 19, 2007)

The Germans Land in Alaska

*Scene 1, The Oval Office:*

The Joint Chiefs in an emergency meeting briefing the President

Chief of Staff: _"Mr. President, The Germans have landed on American soil."_

Roosevelt: _"Damn the dirty Hun, Where?"_

Chief of Staff:_ "Alaska, Sir."_

Roosevelt: _"NEBRASKA!?!? Why those no good... they're going for the heartland... A stroke of brilliance! How the dickens did they manage to land there?"_

Chief of Staff: _"No Mr. President, Alaska, not Nebraska!"_

Roosevelt:_ "Alaska!!!" _(uproarious laughter). Thank goodness!!

The joint chiefs can no longer maintain decorum and bust out laughing too.

Roosevelt: _"What the hell are they thinking?!?!"_

Chief of Staff: _"Not quite sure sir between the weather, escort carriers, subs and PBY patrols, they will be easily contained... intelligence reports that they lost 40% of their troops on the way over."
_

Roosevelt: _"Excellent, tell them to send more troops, hell lets lend them some landing craft!_

All laugh till they cry

.


----------



## Glider (Nov 19, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Glider - all my questions posed about Britain's ability to sustain an aggressive war against Axis in WWII are based on:
> 
> 1. US Strictly neutral - no embargo of any goods with Japan, no supply of Allied nations with any food, oil or war materials/craft
> 2. No Lend Lease - no Destroyers
> ...



My misunderstanding. 
On this premise I believe that the British would be able to defend itself, but I don't believe that we would be able to wage an aggresive war. Concentrating on the Med and the Atlantic we would have been able to hold the germans to acceptable losses. In my earlier postings I outlined the basis on which I believe this could have been achieved. By diverting the long range aircraft to A/S warfare, losses would have significantly reduced to acceptable levels. 
The 50 old destroyers were of some benefit but has been pointed out they were old, unreliable and needed a lot of maintanence and updating. 50 long range aircraft would have been of more benefit and tragically were available but not released by bomber command.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Nov 19, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> The Germans Land in Alaska
> 
> *Scene 1, The Oval Office:*
> 
> ...



   That's pretty good comiso90, and probably not far from the truth  

TO


----------



## Freebird (Nov 19, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Glider - all my questions posed about Britain's ability to sustain an aggressive war against Axis in WWII are based on:
> 
> 1. US Strictly neutral - no embargo of any goods with Japan, no supply of Allied nations with any food, oil or war materials/craft
> 2. No Lend Lease - no Destroyers
> ...



Very interesting question you pose. However you will have to provide some more details. 
1. At what point would you "alter" the timeline, so to speak? 1937? 1940? 1941? 
2. are you saying that the US would have NO opinion on the Japanese conquest of China the Pacific region?
3. The policy of the US changed early in the war from "No military equip" to any nation at war, later it became "Cash Carry" ie. the US would sell military equip to belligerants, but the other country must pay for all exports, and carry away in their own ships. There was never an embargo on oil except on the Japanese, are you saying that the US would *EMBARGO* Canada the UK, friendly nations? This would be an extreme measure, I could see them refusing to export military equip, but all commodities? Would the US government then confiscate Canadian companies operating in the US?Would the US still export to neutral countries?
4. The 50 old destroyers were scheduled to be sold for scrap (I have heard the figure $500,000 for the lot), so if they were bought by a neutral country would the US allow the purchase?


----------



## Soren (Nov 19, 2007)

I must admit that post was very funny Comiso90, nearly spit a mouthfull of tea all over my screen! 

I'll be back with my response to your posts later guys, meanwhile I've got work to do.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 19, 2007)

Glider said:


> My misunderstanding.
> On this premise I believe that the British would be able to defend itself, but I don't believe that we would be able to wage an aggresive war. Concentrating on the Med and the Atlantic we would have been able to hold the germans to acceptable losses. In my earlier postings I outlined the basis on which I believe this could have been achieved. By diverting the long range aircraft to A/S warfare, losses would have significantly reduced to acceptable levels.
> The 50 old destroyers were of some benefit but has been pointed out they were old, unreliable and needed a lot of maintanence and updating. 50 long range aircraft would have been of more benefit and tragically were available but not released by bomber command.



Glider there are some other variables too. Without some extra destroyers, and the supplies from the US in 1940 would the British still have felt confident enough to send ground troops to Greece in late March 1941? If the British had only sent aircraft to help Greece Yugoslavia, but no ground troops, there would not have been a major change in the outcome. (Hitler would still lose 2.5 - 3 months cleaning out the Balkans) However, the British would not have lost 25,000 men, loads more equip., and 25 destroyers cruisers put out of action. They probably would not have had the same problems in Egypt/Libiya too.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 19, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Glider - all my questions posed about Britain's ability to sustain an aggressive war against Axis in WWII are based on:
> 
> 1. US Strictly neutral - *no embargo of any goods with Japan, *
> 
> ...



Hold on, I just read this again, this is too bizarre! 

Drgondog, the main conflict that the US had with Japan was the US embargo on steel oil. 

So you are saying that the US will *freely sell 
oil steel to Japan*, yet a *complete embargo on oil food to UK/Commonwealth? *

This is not "strictly neutral", this would be aiding Japan in the destruction of the UK/Commonwealth.

So, in answer to your question, Can Britain survive in a war against hostile powers Germany Japan, *who are aided by the USA*?

The answer is No


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 19, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> The Germans Land in Alaska
> 
> *Scene 1, The Oval Office:*
> 
> ...


----------



## Glider (Nov 19, 2007)

freebird said:


> Glider there are some other variables too. Without some extra destroyers, and the supplies from the US in 1940 would the British still have felt confident enough to send ground troops to Greece in late March 1941? If the British had only sent aircraft to help Greece Yugoslavia, but no ground troops, there would not have been a major change in the outcome. (Hitler would still lose 2.5 - 3 months cleaning out the Balkans) However, the British would not have lost 25,000 men, loads more equip., and 25 destroyers cruisers put out of action. They probably would not have had the same problems in Egypt/Libiya too.



I do hope that we wouldn't have sent any troops or ships to assist. At the time there was a huge sense of forboding over the decision to send assistance. You are right when you say that the decision went a long way to causing the problems in the Middle East by weakening the army there just at a critical time.
With the lack of assistance from the USA as mentioned we would need to have made tough decisions as to what to defend and what to let go. 

One consequence of your scenario has struck me which you may want to chew over. 
If the USA isn't giving any assistance to the UK then your aeroplane, weapons and naval shipyards wouldn't have been built up during the period 1939-1941. 
It was the orders from the UK and France that financed the expansion of America's military infrastructure. Your ability to arm yourselves wouldn't have been nearly as well developed, leaving the USA in a very difficult position when attacked by Japan.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 19, 2007)

freebird said:


> Hold on, I just read this again, this is too bizarre!
> 
> Drgondog, the main conflict that the US had with Japan was the US embargo on steel oil.
> 
> ...



Good catch - I did Not mean supply Japan/Don't supply Allies. I meant supply both but no Lend Lease - strictly cash and carry - and the policy of strict neutrality starts with China 1931-1937. My error in setting my own assumptions.

The thesis of this thread is how do the Allies fare w/o favorable assistance or outright support from US - including fighting Japan in far east. This would force Commonwealth to truly pick and choose what it must defend to keep Britain engaged enough to force Germany to fight a two front war - and give Japan enough latitude to attack Suez/Middle East from Indian Ocean.

I don't have convictions that Britain could continue through 1943 just because I read several times that Britain needed a million tons per week of food and wondered a.) where it was coming from, and b.) whether Britain could replenish losses of Merchant shipping against combined fleets of Japan, Germany, Italy and maybe even some stray Frog warships, and c.) keep supplies of oil intact. Could GB keep the shipping lanes open along the coast of Africa and within the Med?

This (Battle of Atlantic) seemed to be one of the most critical scenarios of the war relative to knocking Britain out of the war.

The scenario is on the surface perhaps silly because if we were supplying both Germany AND Allies with AvGas - who decides to start sinking US ships first? - lol.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 19, 2007)

Glider said:


> I do hope that we wouldn't have sent any troops or ships to assist. At the time there was a huge sense of forboding over the decision to send assistance. You are right when you say that the decision went a long way to causing the problems in the Middle East by weakening the army there just at a critical time.
> With the lack of assistance from the USA as mentioned we would need to have made tough decisions as to what to defend and what to let go.
> 
> One consequence of your scenario has struck me which you may want to chew over.
> ...


Actually, if we were neutral and on a cash and carry basis we could have done well supplying Japan and Germany if France and Britain chose not to buy anything.. when I said No aid - I meant no Loans/Lend Lease/buy now/Pay later..

As to being 'not nearly as well developed', I would say not as far along but we had started building our base in 1939 and, even with Britain/France purchases, we were Still in woeful situation in late 1941. 

If Japan had sent the third wave to destroy the POL and Sub base at Pearl AND caught our carriers at anchor - we would not have been able to stop them at Midway nor kept Hawaian Islands (IMO).

No, this scenario implies that we may well be standing alone in 1945 had we been successful at sticking our heads in the sand.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 19, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Good catch - I did Not mean supply Japan/Don't supply Allies. I meant supply both but no Lend Lease - strictly cash and carry - and the policy of strict neutrality starts with China 1931-1937. My error in setting my own assumptions.
> 
> The thesis of this thread is how do the Allies fare w/o favorable assistance or outright support from US - including fighting Japan in far east. This would force Commonwealth to truly pick and choose what it must defend to keep Britain engaged enough to force Germany to fight a two front war - and give Japan enough latitude to attack Suez/Middle East from Indian Ocean.
> 
> ...



A very interesting question, I think that it would be possible, given some smart leadership. 

The key unknown in this would be the Japanese. So from your scenario, the USA does not slap any punishment on the Japanese in 1937 - 1941 for its invasion of China. In this case there is NO WAY that the British take any hostile action towards Japan, as had been prodded by the US. The British Dutch, mindful of the help they got from the US, went along with the policy, and shut off oil sales to the Japanese, and re-opened the Burma road to China.

Remember that it was this severe economic pressure that forced the Japanese to attack in Dec. 41. I think that if they could still buy oil steel, they would keep up their buildup, and not attack until late 42 or 43 at the earliest. Instead they would concentrate on completing their conquest of China.


----------



## Soren (Nov 19, 2007)

Ok guys lets first sum up what would most likely have happened had Stalingrad fallen in 1942, which it already was very close to in reality. So lets say Hitler issued all his troops winterclothes (that alone would help enormously since as it was over 60% of Army Group Center was unable to fight because of the lack of winterclothing), and Goering hadn't been responsible for the planning of airdropping supplies, then Stalingrad would've fallen quite quickly. After the collaps of Stalingrad moral in the Soviet army would be at an alltime low and the amounts of Soviet losses prisoners so enormous that the USSR doesn't stand a chance against the approaching German forces which now have gained an extra boost to their effort securing their left flank and so are gaining fast on the Caucasus oil fields which now lie for the taking. Within a month or two the USSR would be no'more.

With the USSR successfully occupied supplies resources are abundant, allowing the German forces in the area to quickly regain full strenght. And with the now truly enormous amounts of resources at their disposal German production of war material would skyrocket! New weapons material would be produced in the hundreds of thousands at a hairraising pace. Panzer VI's could be produced in huge numbers and the introduction of the Panzer V speeded up considerably without having to deal with the teething problems. The Me-262A-1a would be available ready to go in mid 1943, and with reliable better performing engines. Type XXI subs could've been ready in late 43 to early 44. And the list goes on and on, the German army growing bigger more powerful each day....

Against the by now completely enormous fully supplied German army Britain wouldn't hold out for long. First the British US forces would be pushed out of Africa without much trouble, Rommel's DAK recieving lots of new supplies, tanks, weapons reserves by virtue of the now skyrocketing German war industry. Britain would most surely fall not long after, the RAF having been completely eliminated by the fast growing LW. Taking Britain wouldn't have been a walk in the park though, by no means, the British would've fought back ferociously! But the LW Wehrmacht would've simply overpowered the British army in the end by sheer show of arms, completely outnumbering the cut off and ill-supplied British army. 

Britain falls, and Hitler IMO would most likely now focus on parts of Asia and large parts of Africa. Invading America at some point would still be in his mind though, so in order to control the Bering strait he would likely try to occupy part of Alaska. This would also divert some of the US forces, keeping them busy. The German KM would patrol the surrounding waters with their subs to ensure no Allied attempts to cut off the supply lines.(I'll go into detail as to how this would've possibly been carried out later) 

But let me underline again that the Germans weren't going to invade the US through Alaska! 

So your joke, although funny Comiso90, has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Onwards...

Meanwhile the invasion of Asia Africa with the help of Japan would proceed, Japan benefitting well from supplies secured in the east.

The newly equipped KM would also be in nearly complete control over the Atlantic, not that this was of much importance to the US who wouldn't have to send supplies to anyone anymore - except for Australia, but it would've been completely cut off. 

Something to consider however is that by the time it would've taken to overtake the desired parts of Asia Africa its not sure Hitler would still be in command, and the conquests might have been halted. Not sure if anyone could pursuade the public of fighting the whole world for so long, and esp. when any real threat to home is gone and that the very reason behind starting the war in the first place no longer holds water. In the end most of the conquered areas would also resist on such a scale that it no longer would pay to occupy the places, the many different countries eventually rising up once more. (Look at what happened to the Soviet Union) You can't just conquer a country and integrate it into your own society, you can't destroy a country without disposing of its society people, something which is nearly impossible to begin with, and it hasn't succeeded for anyone in recent times.

The British would've certainly not settled with Germans controlling 'their' country, that would be completely out of the question for the British, and so Germany would in the end have had come up with a compromise. (Why am I thinking vassal states ?  )


Now remember that most of this is all hypothetical and that I'm making allot of speculations here, cause no'one really knows what would've happened had the USSR fallen to the Germans.

Anyway the above is my opinion on the subject, now let me hear the various thoughts critique you guys have to give on the subject.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 19, 2007)

Soren said:


> Ok guys lets first sum up what would most likely have happened had Stalingrad fallen in 1942, which it already was very close to in reality. So lets say Hitler issued all his troops winterclothes (that alone would help enormously since as it was over 60% of Army Group Center was unable to fight because of the lack of winterclothing)



Soren Winter clothing was not the problem there, the German army was strethed thin, it was the Rumanian army holding the flank that was smashed by the Russians on Nov 19, allowing them to encircle the German 6th army. Cold weather was not the problem, the problem was that the Germans did not have enough troops to break through 30 miles of the Russian besiegers. 

Hitler appointed perhaps the army's best general, Von Manstein, to command Army group B, and to rescue the 6th army. He sent Hoth's 4th Pz Army to break the siege, Hoth tried failed. (yes he had winter clothing too) 

At the moment that Hoth got within 25 miles, Marshal Zhukov started another Russian offensive on the Rostov front, and opened a 60 mile gap in the Italian 8th army. V. Manstein had no other reserves and was forced to remove half the 4th Pz army to help plug Zhukovs offensive.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No Soren it would not have. Stalingrad was a slaughter house and whether they had winter clothing or not it would not have ended any quicker for either side.
> 
> Trust me I know I have talken to my Grandfather about his experiences there. *By the way he had full winter clothing.* I still have his boots and some of his equipment





Soren said:


> and if Goering hadn't been responsible for the planning of airdropping supplies, then Stalingrad would've fallen quite quickly. After the collaps of Stalingrad moral in the Soviet army would be at an alltime low and the amounts of Soviet losses prisoners so enormous that the USSR doesn't stand a chance against the approaching German forces which now have gained an extra boost to their effort securing their left flank and so are gaining fast on the Caucasus oil fields which now lie for the taking. Within a month or two the USSR would be no'more.



The problem was not Goering, the problem was that the LW did not have the capability in transport to supply the army.

There is no evidence that the loss of Stalingrad would have any effect on the morale, any more than the loss of Kharkov, Kiev, Rostov or any other city.

The capture of Stalingrad does nothing for the Germans, it was just a ruse by the Russians to keep the 6th army tied down while they built up for a large counter-attack. 

There is no huge loss of prisoners at Stalingrad if the Germans take it, the Russians are not encircled at that time, and there will be no great movement in the winter anyways.

The oilfields are not "for the taking" as already stated at this point Army group B is desperately trying to fill the hole in the Italian army, let alone even thinking of an offensive.

USSR falls apart in a couple of months? Are you kidding? 



> With the USSR successfully occupied supplies resources are abundant, allowing the German forces in the area to quickly regain full strength.
> 
> 
> Now remember that most of this is all hypothetical and that I'm making allot of speculations here, cause no'one really knows what would've happened had the USSR fallen to the Germans.
> ...


----------



## drgondog (Nov 19, 2007)

Soren said:


> Ok guys lets first sum up what would most likely have happened had Stalingrad fallen in 1942, which it already was very close to in reality. So lets say Hitler issued all his troops winterclothes (that alone would help enormously since as it was over 60% of Army Group Center was unable to fight because of the lack of winterclothing), and Goering hadn't been responsible for the planning of airdropping supplies, then Stalingrad would've fallen quite quickly. After the collaps of Stalingrad moral in the Soviet army would be at an alltime low and the amounts of Soviet losses prisoners so enormous that the USSR doesn't stand a chance against the approaching German forces which now have gained an extra boost to their effort securing their left flank and so are gaining fast on the Caucasus oil fields which now lie for the taking. Within a month or two the USSR would be no'more.
> 
> *None of that happened.. and what makes you certain of your scenario? One of the key factors of the Wermacht loss was the extended supply lines to and thru Stalingrad and the inadequacy of LW air transport to supply. How d0 you say "Poof make that go away??" last but not least - ya think USSR leaves oilfields intact? and Germans have what 'oil patch' knowledge to control blow outs?
> 
> ...



You failed the first test postulating that Stalingrad was what kept Germany from knocking USSR out of the war.

You failed the second test equating Subs with an aggresive and capable surface fleet capable of supply ANY German expedition by sea (or air). Look what happened to Germans when the heavily outnumbered the Brit forces at Crete, tried to sustain Africa Corp in Africa, or were stopped at English Channel?

For some reason you postulated sheer lunacy by theorizing a German campaign in Alaska? actually the US could just ignore it and sink every supply vessel that tried to keep troops in place? Where were you going to go and what did you think you could do with a two thosand mile march - mostly in water or sea shore? Inland you hit the mountains and tundra... much less mosquitos that can flat foot fornicate with turkeys when it warms up?


----------



## Soren (Nov 19, 2007)

Freebird why slither around the facts ?

Fact is Army Group Center suffered so much from winter cold that 60% was out of action! Are you just going to ignore this as even a factor ??

Sorry but your theory that the lack of winterclothes wasn't the problem is far fetched, firstly because a large part of the forces committed were out of action for this very reason, and secondly had the German troops been fully supplied with winterclothes from the start there'd be no encirclement.


----------



## Soren (Nov 19, 2007)

*Bill,*

You can choose to ignore most of what is written in my posts or you can read it all.

Your small remarks such as "Facts Soren ???" are pretty worthless and really don't even deserve an answer, so please refrain from using these again. 

And as to what proof do I have that the loss of Stalingrad would've cost the Russians the war, well first off Stalin said so himself, secondly he was so desperate about holding the city which had his name on it that he threw everything he had at it. Third had the Germans first secured Stalingrad it would've been all over for the Russians, thats as clear as the sky on a cloudless day, as the left flank was then secured and the German army could continue to push on over open terrain where the Russians stood little chance against the German juggernaut. It was whilst fighting in the large Urban areas that the Germans lost the bulk of their men as the Soviets could negate the German advantage in weapons and machines in these areas, where'as on the other hand they were at an almost complete loss against the Germans everytime the fight took place on the open plains of the Russian countryside. So the Soviets did right in doing their outmost to keep their cities, turning them into deathtraps, but had they lost Stalingrad, their last bastion, it would've been all over the for the USSR and quickly at that.

Study the war in east abit and you'll see that I aint being unreasonable in my assumptions.


Now please let us refrain from using any insults or patronizing remarks about each others arguments. Lets keep this a debate.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 19, 2007)

Soren said:


> Freebird why slither around the facts ?
> 
> Fact is Army Group Center suffered so much from winter cold that 60% was out of action! Are you just going to ignore this as even a factor ??
> 
> ...



The weather on the 19th of Nov was not cold enough to cause what you are suggesting. The reason they were surrounded was that the Soviets had built up a massive counter-stroke, and sent it against the Germans weak allies.

The forces were not "out of action" on Nov 19, when they were encircled. It was not the German line that broke, it was the Rumanians. Did they lack winter clothes too? And the Italians? I will grant you that by mid december lack of winter clothes was a problem, but by then it is already too late. The lack of winter clothing increased the deaths at Stalingrad, but was not the cause. The problems at Stalingrad were that Paulus was a poor General, and Hitler was a poor commander. If the Germans had tried to break out right away, it might have worked, but in any case it would not produce a victory in the battle.


----------



## Glider (Nov 20, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Actually, if we were neutral and on a cash and carry basis we could have done well supplying Japan and Germany if France and Britain chose not to buy anything.. when I said No aid - I meant no Loans/Lend Lease/buy now/Pay later..
> 
> As to being 'not nearly as well developed', I would say not as far along but we had started building our base in 1939 and, even with Britain/France purchases, we were Still in woeful situation in late 1941.
> 
> ...



Its an interesting idea but there are some questions. 

Firstly you wouldn't have sold anything to the Germans. After all, how were they going to get the purchases home?
Secondly, you wouldn't have sold anything to the Japanese. There was a huge level of tension between the USA and Japan over its invasion of China and there was a fuel embargo between the two countries which is one reason why Japan attacked the USA. Trading with Japan would have been similar to trading strategic assets with Russia at the height of the Cold War, I just don't see it happening.
Thirdly, the only reason why the USA started bulding its base in 1939 was because of the weapons purchases of the UK and France. 

The ties with the UK and its willingness to give the USA information about the lessons learnt in the war also had a bearing on the aircraft had a significant impact on the aircraft being designed for the USA. Clearly there wouldn't have been any P51's. The USA were originally going to replace the P43 with the P44, it was mainly the result of lessons learnt in Europe that the P47 was commissioned. When you compare the unarmoured P44's, P40's and P39's against Fw190's, 109G's, Spit IX's in 1942, the difference is clear. Of course you had the P38, but on its own it would struggle aginst the lighter types. 
As for Japan, the delay could easily have seen the main Ki43 replaced with the far more effective Ki44 which would give the American fighters a very hard time whilst at sea the Zero would still face off against the Wildcat.

As for standing alone I believe the UK would still be there, on the defensive but still around. The co operation would be delayed by a year or so, but it would still have taken place.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2007)

freebird said:


> The problem was not Goering, the problem was that the LW did not have the capability in transport to supply the army.
> 
> There is no evidence that the loss of Stalingrad would have any effect on the morale, any more than the loss of Kharkov, Kiev, Rostov or any other city.
> 
> ...



I agree.

I enjoy discussing this with people who want to discuss it objectively and without a clouded mind. 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2007)

Soren said:


> Freebird why slither around the facts ?
> 
> Fact is Army Group Center suffered so much from winter cold that 60% was out of action! Are you just going to ignore this as even a factor ??
> 
> Sorry but your theory that the lack of winterclothes wasn't the problem is far fetched, firstly because a large part of the forces committed were out of action for this very reason, and secondly had the German troops been fully supplied with winterclothes from the start there'd be no encirclement.



No Soren the lack of winter clothes was a big problem. It was however not the only reason why they lost the battle.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2007)

Soren said:


> Your small remarks such as "Facts Soren ???" are pretty worthless and really don't even deserve an answer, so please refrain from using these again.



Why is that Soren?

All he is asking for is facts. That is all that everyone asks from you.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2007)

freebird said:


> The forces were not "out of action" on Nov 19, when they were encircled. It was not the German line that broke, it was the Rumanians. Did they lack winter clothes too? And the Italians? I will grant you that by mid december lack of winter clothes was a problem, but by then it is already too late. The lack of winter clothing increased the deaths at Stalingrad, but was not the cause. The problems at Stalingrad were that Paulus was a poor General, and Hitler was a poor commander. If the Germans had tried to break out right away, it might have worked, but in any case it would not produce a victory in the battle.



I will certainly agree with that as well. Winter Clothing however in November is a must in that part of Russia.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I will certainly agree with that as well. Winter Clothing however in November is a must in that part of Russia.



Well I must admit I was a little surprised when he mentioned winter clothing, after all the German Army suffered from that problem in the winter of 1941, how could they be unprepared a year later? Unbelievable ineptitude!!! But I googled it, and he was right, many suffered from lack of warm clothes. However, in mid November it was cold, but not nearly as cold as Dec&Jan in 1941/1942, when the Germans were pushed back from Moscow. 

From the accounts I found, of a Rumanian soldier, "Nov 19 will live in my memory as a day of black disaster, At the break of dawn on this gloomy foggy day in late Autumn..." He writes how the Russians attacked from both flanks, but he does NOT complain that they were freezing to death at that point. 

I think my argument was that the German army was over-extended, this was the main problem, not the winter clothes. they had pushed too many battalions into the Stalingrad "meat-grinder" and had left the army flanks to the weaker Rumanian army Italian army. The next mistake was not having the 6th army try to break out immediately, before the really cold weather lack of supplies became a problem. However, Hitler would not allow his troops to retreat, he did not want to give up Stalingrad. By the time of Hoth's attempt to break the siege a month later it was too late for the 6th to break out, (no fuel, ammo, food etc.) and at this time the bitter cold killed many 1,000's


----------



## drgondog (Nov 20, 2007)

Glider said:


> Its an interesting idea but there are some questions.
> 
> Firstly you wouldn't have sold anything to the Germans. After all, how were they going to get the purchases home?
> Secondly, you wouldn't have sold anything to the Japanese. There was a huge level of tension between the USA and Japan over its invasion of China and there was a fuel embargo between the two countries which is one reason why Japan attacked the USA. Trading with Japan would have been similar to trading strategic assets with Russia at the height of the Cold War, I just don't see it happening.
> ...



Glider - Nobody has more respect for the fight Britain made against the Germans. Nor for thye technology contributions to US war fighting ability.

My questions are solely about getting the tonnage of food, oil and war material to Britain (and USSR) and keeping the supply lines open without US Merchant fleet, USN and USAAF and RAF Coastal Command flying B-24s in those critical months to help defeat the U-boats.

I don't say "no", I say I don't know "how".

Regards,

Bill


----------



## drgondog (Nov 20, 2007)

Soren said:


> *Bill,*
> 
> You can choose to ignore most of what is written in my posts or you can read it all.
> 
> ...


*

Just in this post I identified a couple of patronizing remarks, here are a couple more:

Study the war in east abit and you'll see that I aint being unreasonable in my assumptions.

Your small remarks such as "Facts Soren ???" are pretty worthless and really don't even deserve an answer, so please refrain from using these again. 

By any chance do you know what 'patronizing' means?*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Just in this post I identified a couple of patronizing remarks, here are a couple more:
> 
> _Study the war in east abit and you'll see that I aint being unreasonable in my assumptions.
> 
> ...




Thats the problem with Soren. If you read almost any of his posts in any thread and you will see these kind of remarks. 

He believes it is okay for him to do it (I dont think he realizes he is doing it) but as soon as someone gives him a taste of his own medicine they are rude and patronizing him....


----------



## drgondog (Nov 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Thats the problem with Soren. If you read almost any of his posts in any thread and you will see these kind of remarks.
> 
> He believes it is okay for him to do it (I dont think he realizes he is doing it) but as soon as someone gives him a taste of his own medicine they are rude and patronizing him....



Chris - the trigger seems to be one of us challenging one of his many 'irrefutable' statements - as if all should be taken without question because he says it is so...

I make mistakes and try to acknowledge them - and if pressed for more facts or reasons, either supply them or admit I don't have any more. 

I am also guilty of sarcasm and not always successful at holding it back - not such a good quality of my own


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 20, 2007)

So lets look at the war in the east without US involvement period.

I dont think the commonwealth could invade Italy before 1944, so could the Germans use the men and material from that theater, and change their fortunes in Russia in 1943?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2007)

I am not sure if the Germans would have been willing to leave themselves unprotected to the south.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 20, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> So lets look at the war in the east without US involvement period.
> 
> I dont think the commonwealth could invade Italy before 1944, so could the Germans use the men and material from that theater, and change their fortunes in Russia in 1943?



Two other interesting questions: Absent any military involvement by US, or immediate threat of it - but Japan attacking in East in December 1941 does Australian government successfully pull Australian 9th Division from Middle East? They played a crucial role in the fight when it could have gone either way.

Could the Germans re-inforce Rommel in 1942? Could the U-boat fleet be partially deployed to attack RN in Med with greater success? If so, what is fate of Commonwealth armies in Africa if cut off/blockaded in Med and western Africa?

As to Commonwealth attacking Italy, would they ever have attacked Italy at all when Churchill was so focused on Balkans? Does Commonwealth prevail there? If so it would be crucial blow to continue into Ploesti and cut off supplies there. If not, then Europe is held entirely by Germany and the outcome of USSR and Germany fight determines fate of Europe.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 20, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Two other interesting questions: Absent any military involvement by US, or immediate threat of it - but Japan attacking in East in December 1941 does Australian government successfully pull Australian 9th Division from Middle East? They played a crucial role in the fight when it could have gone either way.
> 
> Could the Germans re-inforce Rommel in 1942? Could the U-boat fleet be partially deployed to attack RN in Med with greater success? If so, what is fate of Commonwealth armies in Africa if cut off/blockaded in Med and western Africa?
> 
> As to Commonwealth attacking Italy, would they ever have attacked Italy at all when Churchill was so focused on Balkans? Does Commonwealth prevail there? If so it would be crucial blow to continue into Ploesti and cut off supplies there. If not, then Europe is held entirely by Germany and the outcome of USSR and Germany fight determines fate of Europe.



I seriously doubt that the Japanese would attack in 1941 or 1942, the main reason that they did is that the US embargo forced them to. There was a sizable part of the Japanese war Cabinet that was against it even then. Remember that they were heavily engaged in China at the time. If they had access to US, British Dutch supplies they would continue their consolidation for another 18 - 24 months at least. 

Churchill may have had ideas about the Balkans, but the Chiefs of Staff had a better understanding of this, and were focused on clearing up the Med knocking Italy out of the war. (remember that the Italian government fell before even 1 Allied soldier landed on mainland Italy!)

Churchill rarely over-ruled the CoS committee, mainly because if an operation failed and it became known that he ordered it in spite of the Chiefs opinion, he could have lost the confidence of the house.

Thats one of the main differences between US UK military policy. (but thats another thread!)


----------



## Glider (Nov 20, 2007)

Bill

*The impetus for the B-29 and P-47 was in part Charles Lindbergh's report of German aircraft capability while observing in 1938 and US Army belief that we may end up fighting Germany without Britain - before end of 1939. Seversky realized the P-43 was not the answer to high altitude performance*
Certainly agree re the B29 but the P47 was I understood the result of lessons learnt after the war started. 
However I over simplified the point re support of the USA infrastructure, my mistake. 
The point about the British and French orders being important to the build up of the US infrastructure. US aircraft orders were small by European standards which is understandable but advanced designs were being progressed. The production facilities were built up on the back of the European orders. FInancially the US manufactures were in trouble when France fell. Curtis and Douglas in particular were in serious danger of collapse, they had invested huge sums in the creation of the factories but with France gone, there was no money coming in to pay for them. This was a key factor in the UK's decision to take on all the French orders, even if they were aircraft such as the Maryland, that we originally had no interest in.

*Probably true - except for friendly Cash and Carry policy as suggested above and certainly for P-59 and P-80..and airborne radar and sonar/anti sub advances.. but what else*
Be fair, its not a bad starting list . The UK also urged the USA to take on board the 20mm and 40mm AA guns, the 6pd AT gun, plus others that the USA didn't pursue such as the Bren Gun and of all things even the Biro pen which became a prized target of 'borrowing' later in the war.

*My questions are solely about getting the tonnage of food, oil and war material to Britain (and USSR) and keeping the supply lines open without US Merchant fleet, USN and USAAF and RAF Coastal Command flying B-24s in those critical months to help defeat the U-boats.*

I understand and certainly don't take your comments as being a criticism. I believe that the UK could have reduced the losses in the Merchant marine to acceptable levels, but *only *if decisions were made that were not made at the time. The biggest of these being the release of long range bomber aircraft from Bomber Command to Coastal Command. The situation would have been helped by the concentration of our naval forces in the Med and Atlantic. The increased numbers and reduction in loss and damage to air attack would have also helped availability.
On my first posting I described this as my nightmare scenario as I truely do not believe that the decisions that would need to have been taken, would have been taken.


----------



## Glider (Nov 20, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Two other interesting questions: Absent any military involvement by US, or immediate threat of it - but Japan attacking in East in December 1941 does Australian government successfully pull Australian 9th Division from Middle East? They played a crucial role in the fight when it could have gone either way.


With the UK concentrating on the Med and Atlantic, then yes I believe they could have been extracted.



> Could the Germans re-inforce Rommel in 1942?


Only if he didn't attack Russia. 


> Could the U-boat fleet be partially deployed to attack RN in Med with greater success? If so, what is fate of Commonwealth armies ive expanded their n Africa if cut off/blockaded in Med and western Africa?


Again the awnser I believe is no. The U Boats were fully employed in the Atlantic. They could have sent more to the Med but only if they reduced their effort in the Atlantic. Its also worth remembering that the Med is a dangerous place for Subs. Its shallow and there are plenty of aircraft around to give cover.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 20, 2007)

freebird said:


> I seriously doubt that the Japanese would attack in 1941 or 1942, the main reason that they did is that the US embargo forced them to. There was a sizable part of the Japanese war Cabinet that was against it even then. Remember that they were heavily engaged in China at the time. If they had access to US, British Dutch supplies they would continue their consolidation for another 18 - 24 months at least.
> 
> *That makes sense - also giving Britain time to reinforce PTO had they chosen to do so... but as Japan was allied with Axis do they keep hands off there also? I mean Hitler hardly failed to notice that Japan was (prudently) not piling on the USSR from the East - would he have any leverage in getting the Japanese to attack GB and the Dutch?*
> 
> ...


----------



## Wildcat (Nov 20, 2007)

> Originally Posted by drgondog
> Two other interesting questions: Absent any military involvement by US, or immediate threat of it - but Japan attacking in East in December 1941 does Australian government successfully pull Australian 9th Division from Middle East? They played a crucial role in the fight when it could have gone either way.





Glider said:


> With the UK concentrating on the Med and Atlantic, then yes I believe they could have been extracted.



Actually the Aust. Government had a hard time trying to recall its forces from the Middle East. Churchill was against the idea but intense pressure from the Aust, Prime Minister, John Curtin, saw the 6th and 7th Divisions returned home in '42. However Churchill ordered the convoy to Burma against the will and knowledge of the Aust. Government. Owing to more pressure applied by Curtin, these Divisions eventually made it to Australia (minus a few Infantry Brigades deployed to Ceylon and Java) where they quickly deployed to new Guinea. The 9th Division didn't return home untill '43 where they too were deployed to New Guinea. It must be remembered that it was the inexperianced and ill equipped Australian Militia that was doing the fighting in the early days in New Guinea. This is why the Australian Government was screaming out to have its battle hardened Divisions returned home from the Middle East. After the loss of the entire 8th Division at singapore, we were virtually undefended (the majority of the RAAF and RAN were also overseas). IMO the fact that Churchill was willing to abandon Australia and deal with our problems after the Germans had been defeated doesn't sit well with me. We were willing to send all we had in the Defence of England and in the fight against tyranny, yet in our hour of need Churchill basically turned his back at us, hence why Australia turned to America.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 20, 2007)

Wildcat said:


> Actually the Aust. Government had a hard time trying to recall its forces from the Middle East. Churchill was against the idea but intense pressure from the Aust, Prime Minister, John Curtin, saw the 6th and 7th Divisions returned home in '42. However Churchill ordered the convoy to Burma against the will and knowledge of the Aust. Government. Owing to more pressure applied by Curtin, these Divisions eventually made it to Australia (minus a few Infantry Brigades deployed to Ceylon and Java) where they quickly deployed to new Guinea. The 9th Division didn't return home untill '43 where they too were deployed to New Guinea. It must be remembered that it was the inexperianced and ill equipped Australian Militia that was doing the fighting in the early days in New Guinea. This is why the Australian Government was screaming out to have its battle hardened Divisions returned home from the Middle East. After the loss of the entire 8th Division at singapore, we were virtually undefended (the majority of the RAAF and RAN were also overseas). IMO the fact that Churchill was willing to abandon Australia and deal with our problems after the Germans had been defeated doesn't sit well with me. We were willing to send all we had in the Defence of England and in the fight against tyranny, yet in our hour of need Churchill basically turned his back at us, hence why Australia turned to America.



WC - from my own studies of that campaign from all three sides I believe New Gunea would have fallen to Japanese - and with it the very key Port Moresby..

That battle was as important as Guadalcanal to US


----------



## Freebird (Nov 20, 2007)

First this thread seems to be "What if" X country remained neutral, so I will give my opinions.

There seems to be lots of mis-information and (possibly patriotic) overstatements of which of the Allied powers did the most. *Some* Americans and *most* Russians have an over-inflated view of their country's role in defeating the Axis.

Personally I think the contribution of the "big 3" is about equal, (33% each). The Russians put in the most manpower, the Americans contributed the most production, and the UK/Commonwealth tied down a large portion of the German army air power early in the war, as well as contributing large naval forces. You can argue who did 34% and who did 32% but thats splitting straws.

_I'm going to postulate the positions if any of the "Big 3" were not in the war, so hold on for parts 2 3!_

*First: How would the US USSR fare without the UK Allies?*

Could the US invade Nazi Germany with Britian neutral? (or conquered!) I think it is highly doubtful. Suppose the UK is not in the war after 1940, either by armistice with Hitler or invasion of the UK. It would be very difficult for Russia to hold out without 1/3 of the Axis forces guarding Western/Southern Europe, Africa + Norway, not to mention about 1/2 the Axis air forces. The Germans also lost 3 critical months before Barbarossa (April, May, June) Without the threat of the British causing trouble, Hitler could have sent 20 - 25 Germans divisions (part of France + Norway garrison) to deal with Yugoslavia + Greece. He would not have to postpone "Barbarossa", he could have had the full 145 division invasion force in April 1941. With the FULL Axis AF, (not just 1/2), 3 extra months and no lend-lease I don't think Russia has much chance to hold out. Hitler would not even have a pressing need for the Russian oil, as German and Italian naval forces, unhindered by the Royal Navy, could land in the Levant (Syria pro-German under Vichy control, Iraq had a German supported Fascist coup in Spring 1941), and gain control of Persia/Iraq. If the Japanese had access to Dutch British oil they would most likely complete their conquest of China it's possible that they would attack the Soviet Far East in 1941 - 1942.

So what would the US situation be at the middle/end of 1942 if faced by German Japanese control of all of Asia, huge air, naval ground forces, yet is still in a peace-time mode? I think the US would be in a very bad position!


----------



## Freebird (Nov 20, 2007)

Could the US/UK have won the war without the USSR? It would have been almost impossible, especially if they were neutral in 1941. if they were allied/conquered by the Nazi's both the US UK would have had almost no chance of invading Europe. However, there is almost no chance that Hitler Stalin could remain allies, the Russians would have attacked the Nazi's in 1942 had they not been attacked first. (Stalin's plan)

Of the three "1 Allied neutral" scenarios the strongest case can be made for British/Soviet victory even if the US is neutral. However, the British have almost no margin for error, and must make some fundamental changes in war strategy. As I posted earlier, I think the Japanese would stay neutral through 1942, as even though the British are vulnerable, I don't think the Japanese would try an invasion of Malaya/Indonesia while the Americans have large forces intact at Pearl Manila. Yes I know the scenario says US neutral, but this would have to be because of Congressional policy. (or Roosevelt lost the '40 election to an isolationist) The Japanese know that an election would be held in Nov 1942, so I think they would have to know who controls Congress, before deciding to attack the Dutch/UK. (suppose the committed to attack and suddenly the US enters the war as pro-interventionists take power?) If the Isolationists are still in power in Dec 1942, then they might contemplate attacking Malaya/Indonesia.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 21, 2007)

You asked Drgondog, so here is the British plan (in some detail!!!)

*So how does the UK survive the war without the US? *

Glider has already mentioned the first point,
#1 *The UK needed to put far more effort into command of the oceans using long range A/S patrols.* 

I would take it a step further, do as the Army Navy (Brooke Pound) had proposed, that Coastal Command and Army air support be taken from the RAF, just as the Fleet Air Arm was taken from the RAF in 1937.

The problem was that all of the top RAF brass (Newall, Portal, Harris) were all followers of the "Trenchard Doctrine" which believed that the war could be won with only a heavy-bombing campaign, which later proved to be wrong. There were earlier reports of the lack of results, and a comprehensive study (Butt report) in Aug 1941 showed that over the Ruhr only 10% of the bombers hit within FIVE miles of their targets! Since the top RAF brass controled development production, the lion's share went to Bomber Command Fighter Command, but there was not nearly enough effort made in providing army support, and Coastal Command had to get by on hand-me-down aircraft. (Whitley's, Hampden's etc.)

Thanks to Glider for his earlier excellent post!



Glider said:


> In my earlier postings I outlined the basis on which I believe this could have been achieved. By diverting the long range aircraft to A/S warfare, losses would have significantly reduced to acceptable levels.
> The 50 old destroyers were of some benefit but has been pointed out they were old, unreliable and needed a lot of maintanence and updating. 50 long range aircraft would have been of more benefit and tragically were available but not released by bomber command. The aircraft used in Coastal Command at the time were obsolete bombers, Whitley, Hampden plus Hudsons and a few Wellingtons.
> Those that could have been used are Sterlings and Halifax's.



#2* Complete the rail network in Africa Arabia to Russia*

This is probably one of the most overlooked solutions. 
From June 1940 - June 1943 the British could not use the Mediterranean and were forced to go around the cape of South Africa. This used up an extra 1 - 2 million tons for the longer journey. In 1941 the German submarines started to suffer high losses in the North Atlantic, so they moved to more fruitful distant areas, like the S. Atlantic. The British would have done well to eliminate all excess shipping routes by using rail instead.

I propose that in 1940 after the Battle of Britain the British realize that they cannot count on any US support, so they start making plans to maintain communication, by linking their Empire rail systems. 

The best option to reduce shipping is to link the Nigerian rail network with the one in Egypt/Sudan, by building 1,100 miles of track across Chad, from Ft. Lamy to Egypt. (Chad is in Free French control, from Aug 1940) I would also finish the last 500 miles of the Cairo - Capetown railway to link up with the South African system. From my information, a railway party of 50 - 60 men with horses can build 3 - 5 miles per day over normal terrain. 8 or 10 such parties could finish the track in about 2 - 3 months. This would allow for the elimination of the "round the cape route", the cargo would off-load in Nigeria or Cameroon, and men, tanks planes could be sent to Egypt, oil would be transported the other direction. Canada S. Africa could supply the equip + skilled labour, with surplus track from Namibia, Botswana etc.

I would also complete the 600 miles of Baghdad - Beirut railway through Jordan to Persia. This would give a rail link from Nigeria through Egypt Persia to Russia, allowing the elimination of the costly Murmansk convoys, as supplies could be sent much more quickly by rail. (the Allies did send the greatest % of lend-lease through Persia in 1942-1943)

#3 *Reduce the number of convoy routes, but increase their protection*

The British would then move all goods by rail, except 3 heavily protected convoy routes (+ 1 aux) Each waypoint on the routes would have an airbase operating a squadron (or more) of long range A/S patrols (except Hawaii). None of the legs are more than 800 - 900 miles from an airbase, except the two from Guiana, S. America to Gambia, Africa (2500 miles) and Vancouver - Fanning Isl. which is about 3500 miles. So the longest A/S patrol would have to be 1,300 miles (No sub activity expected (Vancouver - Fanning)

Route 1 UK Liverpool - Iceland - Greenland - St. John's - Montreal
Route 2 Halifax - Bermuda - Virgin Is - Trinidad - Guiana - Gambia - Nigeria
Route 3 Bombay - Ceylon - Sumatra - Java - Perth - Adelaide - Auckland
(Aux) 4 Vancouver - (Hawaii) - Fanning - Tahiti - Tonga - Auckland - Sydney

I would calculate that in 1942 the concentration of shipping routes, + the increased A/S patrols, + elimination of Murmansk convoys should reduce the losses from U-boats by at least half, to under 2 million tons. This would almost match the Commonwealth construction (1.8 million tons in '42) Even if the British lose 3 million tons in 1942 and in 1943 they are STILL ahead of their pre-war total. With the reduction in the # of shipping routes they have surplus capacity.

In answer to your question about Allied shipping Drgondog, the British Allied shipping losses in '39 - '41 were about 5.3 millon tons, while the UK/Commonwealth built about 2.6 millon tons '39 - '41. However the British also picked up about 5.6 million tons, mainly from the Norwegian Dutch merchant marine. So by Dec 1941 they are actually 3 million tons *ahead* of when they started the war.

Thanks for the info AL Schlageter


AL Schlageter said:


> Got this off some BB somewhere, sometime.
> 1939:
> Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines 509,321 tons (127,330.25/month)
> 
> ...



So that is what I calculate is the best solution to the Shipping/U-boat problem, next I'll post the British Military strategies


----------



## Soren (Nov 21, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Just in this post I identified a couple of patronizing remarks, here are a couple more:
> 
> _Study the war in east abit and you'll see that I aint being unreasonable in my assumptions.
> 
> ...



Bill the last remark is completely of the "You get what you give" nature, posting remarks such as "Facts Soren ???" is patronizing so you can't expect anything less in return. The next isn't really patronizing as you've said yourself some time ago that your strong side isn't the history of the eastern front. 

But yes I can patronize and I sometimes do, no doubt, but only when I've been patronized myself - you give what you recieve and you get what you give, right ? 

If I write something which I later find wrong, unjust or unnecessarily patronizing I will always apologize (Just did recently in another thread if you don't remember)

PS: Discussing my supposed habbits behavior openly with other member IS patronizing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2007)

*1st.* Freebird I think you have an interesting concept up there and for the most part I agree with you. There are some points that I might not agree with but for the most part anything any of say is really just speculation because this is a What If Thread. So basically I just wanna say interesting and good prediction there.

*2nd.*


Soren said:


> Bill the last remark is completely of the "You get what you give" nature, posting remarks such as "Facts Soren ???" is patronizing so you can't expect anything less in return. The next isn't really patronizing as you've said yourself some time ago that your strong side isn't the history of the eastern front.
> 
> But yes I can patronize and I sometimes do, no doubt, but only when I've been patronized myself - you give what you recieve and you get what you give, right ?
> 
> ...





Sorry Soren but you bring 90 percent of it on. 

Normally you start it was things such as "Thats Hogwash! You dont know what you are talking about. Another perfect example of Allied Propaganda and how the Allies write History!"

Soren that is what causes 90 percent of the problems people have with you because if someone disagrees with you, you start saying things like that. Whether you realize that or not, it is kind of insulting and people dont appreciate it and then they start throwing things at you and you start the "Oh poor me! Stop Patronizing me!"


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 21, 2007)

Freebird a couple of major points to ponder with your theory
1) the guages of the raillines in Africa were of several guages it would take years to conform the track I believe it is still different today 
2) the assistance pf the Americans in building the airports in Newfoundland and Iceland remember many of these non existant at the time airports were part of the swap for the 50 destroyers
3) the pack ice in Labrador and Greenland would force your routs south still leaving the gap in the middle of the Atlantic
4) where are we getting the training aircraft from to train aircrew
Stearmans , Cornells , Harvards/T6,s C45's C47's Cessna Cranes and the list would be endless, . Then we can move over to aviation engines 
. The result is without the US we would be screwed , blued ,and tatooed


----------



## Freebird (Nov 21, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Freebird a couple of major points to ponder with your theory
> 1) the guages of the raillines in Africa were of several guages it would take years to conform the track I believe it is still different today
> 2) the assistance pf the Americans in building the airports in Newfoundland and Iceland remember many of these non existant at the time airports were part of the swap for the 50 destroyers
> 3) the pack ice in Labrador and Greenland would force your routs south still leaving the gap in the middle of the Atlantic
> ...



Good points PB!

*1.)* I did some checking of the guages before I came up with the theory!  The rail networks in Nigeria, Sudan, Congo, Rhodesia South Africa are all narrow guage, 3'6", so they would be compatible. The rail network in Egypt Palestine Persia are all standard guage, 4'9". It is not very difficult to re-guage rail lines, the Germans had to do this with the Soviet lines. (Germany uses standard, USSR uses broad-guage 5'6") It is actually much easier to do when the roadbed is intact, I've seen pictures of the Soviet tanks with a dozer blade driving along destroying the ties furrowing the roadbed. The really difficult part is to build all the infrastructure rolling stock. Since these were already operating in Nigeria, Egypt, Sudan, Persia S. Africa at the time it saves about 80% - 90% of the effort. I think the best plan would be to reguage the Nigerian rail lines to standard, and run a standard line across Chad to link up with the Egyptian/Palestine standard network They would need to bring in engines rolling stock from Canada (also standard guage) to expand the capacity. I would transfer all the Nigerian Engines rolling stock to the Congo/S. Africa network.

So you would have one standard network from Nigeria through Chad, Egypt, Palestine, Persia to Russia.

The other narrow-guage network would connect South Africa Congo with Sudan and terminate in Egypt.

*2.)* There were already airports in Iceland St. John's. we would have to build or improve airstrips in Greenland, possibly Labrador as well. Its not that much effort to build an airstrip, was the Japanese one at Guadalcanal not made in about 6 weeks? 

*3.)* Yes the route would swing south in the winter, but with the 1,400 range of the Whitley 5's, the 1,800 mile range of the Halifax or Wellington the 2,000+ range of the Stirling (with extra fuel) they could patrol from Iceland or St. John's as far south as the Azores!

*4.)* The British had loads of obsolete aircraft that they could use for training. Brewster Buffalos, Fairey Battles, Vildebeests, Blackburn Rocs, B.P. Defiants, Vultees, Gladiators etc. Instead of throwing these aircraft away in futile combat they should be used for training. I would also station a mix of experienced trainee pilots at the various A/S bases, to give them more training. It would be possible for some experienced pilots to take trainees along on A/S missions in the Indian Ocean, South Atlantic, Pacific etc. This was not possible in the high-intensity bombing missions over Germany.

Of course Canada would be providing Ansons, Harvards, in addition to the Hurricanes, Mosquitos, Bolingbrokes, Lancasters etc. 
I believe Drgondog proposed the scenario that all nations could buy "Cash Carry", so US engines would be available if demand exceeded Commonwealth production.

Of course I agree that without the US it would be a *bloody tough situation* but not impossible, that's what the scenario is exploring. Anyways if the US was neutral, what's the alternative? Surrender? 

"We will fight on till the end - We will never surrender!"


----------



## drgondog (Nov 21, 2007)

As long as we are playing what if on the course of Britain, USSR, Germany and Japan - take into account possible course of action for Britain (and France) not declaring War in September 1939.

Possibility exists that while Germany consolidates Poland - that he decides NOT to attack westward. There were enough Generals that didn't want the war to continue arguing against it. So say Britain says 'not me'.

France continues to build, expecting war. US already in wartime increase of military capability. US declares alliance with France and USSR

What if Hitler strikes East earlier than he did and does not declare war on France? He might have defeated USSR with few reserves in West.. but France was capable military force - just outflanked in 1940. What if France strikes Germany in middle of Russian campaign? 

So who knows what the public mood is in the US. In this scenario I think it is higher probability that Germany defeats USSR, then consolidates and defeats France, then attains complete control of the air over channel. 

Next question, who protects oil in Middle East from Germany? or Rumania? 

If Britain is still neutral and refuses an overture as 'peaceful partner' from Hitler - hitler plays trump card and cuts off Britain from ME oil and as Britain isn't an ally of the US, US doesn't supply Britain but continues to assist France if they are still fighting..

Does Britain survive 'neutrality?

Key point to ponder - US basically went from zero to lightspeed in 2 years relative to taking prototypes and mobilizing huge capable forces with weight of weapons and manpower surpassing Germany. USN essentially defeated Japanese Navy single handedly with major forces and resources going to ETO.

US has better chance of keeping Russia in the war than Britain had we engaed Germany in 1939 (i.e replace Britain scenario).. the supply lines were long but we could put more tonnage into Eastern Siberia (except winter) than we did via Murmansk... have to sort out whether Russia, US and China could put together a cohesive strategy to align 700,000,000 people together to defeat 60,000,000 in west and about same in east.

Think it could be done but all speculation on pivotal political and military decisions in 1940 after fall of Poland.

Interesting to contemplate Britain and France not declaring war in sept 1939 and Germany deciding to not attack? But US declare war as soon as Germany attacks either USSR or France. Gives Germany time to continue U-Boat build up, US to consolidate ties with USSR (forget politics in this game - just one big happy family on both sides but Allies replace Britain with France and have more time to build up..

Even this scenario favors Axis with Britain out - Britain a tougher strategic problem for Germany with 26 miles of water separating them and far easier to build for an invasion than go theough USSR

Good to chat


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 21, 2007)

The airports are really very complex things to build especially in places like Labrador and Newfoundland the climate has a huge effect on construction you have to dig down to the frostline otherwise its a wasted effort. Look at the Alaska Highway which was the 2nd largest project by the US after the Manhattan project in WW2 it took the US army 2 months to build the first 60 miles , and your talking about buildimg railways across continents in weeks , deserts , rivers , jungle etc it's not all savanah,
Plopping down airports with fuel farms etc is a fools paradise because much of the year its impossible to bring fuel in because of ice. I lived in Goose Bay one of the airports your talking about we could only bring in fuel from the end of May til the end of Oct because of ice , the same could be said of every item needed for an airport.
Without US engines not one of the aircraft that Canada made in your list would be worth a damm the Lanc ,Mosquito etc were all powered by Packard Rolls engines . Would the US even make the Packard Rolls?
One of the reasons Canada declared war 7 days after the UK was so they could order aircraft without screwing the neutrality of the US


----------



## drgondog (Nov 21, 2007)

freebird said:


> You asked Drgondog, so here is the British plan (in some detail!!!)
> 
> *So how does the UK survive the war without the US? *
> 
> ...



Good stuff Freebird - if you can take into account Japan fleet thrown into fray?


----------



## Freebird (Nov 21, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> The airports are really very complex things to build especially in places like Labrador and Newfoundland the climate has a huge effect on construction you have to dig down to the frostline otherwise its a wasted effort. Look at the Alaska Highway which was the 2nd largest project by the US after the Manhattan project in WW2 it took the US army 2 months to build the first 60 miles , and your talking about buildimg railways across continents in weeks , deserts , rivers , jungle etc it's not all savanah,
> Plopping down airports with fuel farms etc is a fools paradise because much of the year its impossible to bring fuel in because of ice. I lived in Goose Bay one of the airports your talking about we could only bring in fuel from the end of May til the end of Oct because of ice , the same could be said of every item needed for an airport.
> Without US engines not one of the aircraft that Canada made in your list would be worth a damm the Lanc ,Mosquito etc were all powered by Packard Rolls engines . Would the US even make the Packard Rolls?
> One of the reasons Canada declared war 7 days after the UK was so they could order aircraft without screwing the neutrality of the US



You might be right about Labrador, I couldn't find much about its pre-war status. You obviously know much more about Goose Bay. If it is unsuitable location then all the A/S patrols would have to be run from Iceland, St. Johns Halifax. 

The one part of the proposed Africa/Arabia rail network that does not have any transportation line is the part going east - west through the plains of central Chad. It would be no more difficult building than the Union Pacific did in the plains of Nevada/Utah or Nebraska. Chad is mostly all savannah, with the jungle not beginning a for a few hundred miles south. 
Chad climate terrain - Chad Climate

The completion of the Cairo - Capetown line would be nice to link with S. Africa but is not critical as is the Nigeria - Egypt line. There are two sections missing in 1939, the first is about 500 miles of semi-arid plains along the White Nile in southern Sudan. Sudan Geography

The second gap is about 100 miles along the Congo river south of Stanlyville. This is in jungle/forest so would be more difficult. However there had already been 1,500 miles of rail built through the jungles of Congo prior to 1935 so it's not impossible. Both the gaps along the Nile Congo river are well served by river barges. (which is why the railway had not been built there yet)

The Arabian portion is from Amman Jordan, along the oil pipeline route, to Ramadi Iraq, to Baghdad and from Maidan, Iraq to Hamadan, Persia. (this is to replace the part of the Baghdad - Beirut railway that goes through neutral Turkey.) Again I don't think Iraq would be overly tough terrain. Of course some of the vetrans here could tell me more about the land, but I've heard its mostly desert.

As for the engines, the US companies needed the business, if RR went to Packard to build Merlins I'm sure they would be able to.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 21, 2007)

Labrador had no prewar status except for some fishing villages and indiginous people, . Except for Goose and Gander which were built by Canada for the ferry routes all the airbases in Newfoundland like St Anthony, Stephensville , Deer Lake Ft Harmon , Ft Pepperall ,Torbay were all built and maintained by the US in the destroyer trade


----------



## Wildcat (Nov 21, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> 4) where are we getting the training aircraft from to train aircrew
> Stearmans , Cornells , Harvards/T6,s C45's C47's Cessna Cranes and the list would be endless, .





freebird said:


> *4.)* The British had loads of obsolete aircraft that they could use for training. Brewster Buffalos, Fairey Battles, Vildebeests, Blackburn Rocs, B.P. Defiants, Vultees, Gladiators etc. Instead of throwing these aircraft away in futile combat they should be used for training. I would also station a mix of experienced trainee pilots at the various A/S bases, to give them more training. It would be possible for some experienced pilots to take trainees along on A/S missions in the Indian Ocean, South Atlantic, Pacific etc. This was not possible in the high-intensity bombing missions over Germany.



Good point. It may also be worth mentioning that in 1940 the RAF placed an order for 245 engine-less Wirraways ( CAC was building P&W Wasps for the Wirraway in Aust., but incase of shortages the RAF were going to install US built Wasps on there arrival in the UK). The order was also increased to 500 a/c in Oct 1940.
Obviously this never happened because in the end the RAF got Harvards from the US, but it goes to show there was another option available to them.


----------



## Soren (Nov 21, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Sorry Soren but you bring 90 percent of it on.



What about the last 10 percent then ? 



> Normally you start it was things such as "Thats Hogwash!



Really ? Well if thats my normal approach then you must be able to find an example quickly ?



> You dont know what you are talking about.



When have I ever used that sentence unjustly ??? Come on seriously!



> Another perfect example of Allied Propaganda and how the Allies write History!"



Hehe, you're confusing me with someone else Adler cause thats not one of my usual comments - and thats for sure! 



> Soren that is what causes 90 percent of the problems people have with you because if someone disagrees with you, you start saying things like that. Whether you realize that or not, it is kind of insulting and people dont appreciate it and then they start throwing things at you and you start the "Oh poor me! Stop Patronizing me!"



Well if I ever called what you said "hogwash" I'd understand, the problem is though that I haven't...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2007)

Soren we can discuss this further in a PM if you would you like. It does not really matter however because you wont try to see it and everyone else will know it.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 21, 2007)

Wildcat said:


> Good point. It may also be worth mentioning that in 1940 the RAF placed an order for 245 engine-less Wirraways ( CAC was building P&W Wasps for the Wirraway in Aust., but incase of shortages the RAF were going to install US built Wasps on there arrival in the UK). The order was also increased to 500 a/c in Oct 1940.
> Obviously this never happened because in the end the RAF got Harvards from the US, but it goes to show there was another option available to them.



Just out of curiosity Wildcat, how useful would the Wirraway been? Obviously in this scenario the Commonwealth will have to play a much bigger role, Canada was making Hurricanes, what about producing them there? Or was the wirraway adequate?


----------



## Wildcat (Nov 22, 2007)

freebird said:


> Just out of curiosity Wildcat, how useful would the Wirraway been? Obviously in this scenario the Commonwealth will have to play a much bigger role, Canada was making Hurricanes, what about producing them there? Or was the wirraway adequate?



As a fighter it was completely outclassed (as shown over Rabaul in '42) but as an advanced trainer it was entirely suitable, it served in this role from 1939 to 1959 with the RAAF. Definately an option if no T-6's were available. As for a lack of training a/c as pbfoot mentioned, I wouldn't think this would be a problem without US types. Various types were produced all over the Commonwealth eg. Tiger Moths (in the UK, Canada, Aust. NZ), Wirraways and Wacketts (Aust.), Ansons (UK and Canada), Oxfords (UK), Fleet Forts (Canada) etc etc.
As for producing Hurricanes (or Spitfires for that matter) I don't see why not. As it was, we were producing Beauforts, Beaufighters, Boomerangs and at the end of the war Mustangs. Also there were plans to build Lancasters down here, obviously this never eventuated because of the availability of B-24's from the US.
Like you said the Commonwealth would obviously play a bigger role, whether they were up to it, we'll never know.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 22, 2007)

None of this discussion can be proved, it can only be backed by the correct evidence to make people think about alternate possibilities. I think that Britain and her Commonwealth could defeat Germany in a war of attrition with the aid of the Soviet Union, and trade with the U.S. In the completely unlikely situation where the U.S decides to cripple her economy by not trading with any of the beligerant nations then Britain would struggle, but defeat would still not be certain. 

The Soviet Union should be the most thankful of Western support; it's appropriate to mention that 14% of British tank production was sent to the Soviet Union. The U.S.A, Canada and Britain combined provided 22,800 armour vehicles to Soviet Union, of these 1981 were lost at sea. The deliveries equalled 16% of Soviet tank production, 12% of self-propelled gun (SPG) production and 100% of armoured personnel carrier (APC) production. 
The first shipment was in 1941, it consisted of 487 Matildas, Valentines and Tetrachs from Britain and 182 M3A1 Light Tanks and M3 Medium Tanks from the U.S.A. In 1942 the Soviet Union received 2487 AFVs from Britain and 3023 AFVs from the U.S.A. 

Of the 1420 Mk.VI Valentines produced at Canadian Pacific of Montreal all but 30 (retained for training) were sent to the Soviet Union. The production of the Valentine in the British Commonwealth was set to cease in 1943 but had to continue for another year to fulfill Soviet requirements. The Matilda II (A12) served through the entirety of the war because of its use in the Red Army; 1084 were sent to Russia throughout the war and used as infantry support tanks because of their superior armour protection to the T-60 and T-70. Churchill Mk.I, II and IIIs were supplied to the Soviet Union up until 1942 reaching a total delivery of 301; with 43 being lost at sea. During the Battle of Prokhorovka at Kursk in 1943 the only heavy tanks available to the Fifth Guards Tank Army were 35 Churchills. The Soviet Union also received 2656 Bren Gun Carriers, 25 Valentine bridge-layers and 6 Cromwells from the British Commonwealth. 

The U.S provided 1386 M3 Medium tanks to the Soviet Union during the war, and earned the nickname 'Grave for Seven Brothers'. Some were captured by the Germans and used against their former owners. The Soviet dislike certainly came from the obvious inferority the M3 had to the T-34. The Soviets also received 1676 M3A1 light tanks under Lend-Lease, some came from British stocks but most from the U.S. The famous M4 Sherman was sent to the Soviet Union in large numbers; 2007 M4A2s, 3230 M4A2 (76W) and 1386 M4A3s were sent to the Soviet Union. The Red Army did not like the high profile of the Sherman, but despite all their criticism the Sherman was more durable and reliable than the T-34. 

For other vehicles the U.S provided 3340 M3 Scout Cars, 342 M2 Half-Tracks, 2 M3 Half-Tracks, 421 M5 Half-Tracks and 413 M9 Half-Tracks. The most appreciated weapon sent to the Soviet Union was the M17 and M15A1 as the Soviet Union had no indigenous self-propelled anti-aircraft guns; in total the USSR received 1000 M17s and 100 M15A1s. Others on the list include 5 M5 Light Tanks, 2 M24 Light Tanks, 1 M25 Heavy Tank and 115 M31 ARVs, 650 T48 Tank Destroyers, 5 M18 'Hellcats' and 52 M10 'Wolverines'. The U.S also provided 501,660 tactical wheeled and tracked vehicles: 77,972 Jeeps, 151,053 1 ton trucks and 200,662 2 ton trucks. The vehicles from the U.S had the initias 'USA' stenciled on their side, to the Red Army this stood for '_Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa_' which means "Kill that son of a whore Adolf". 

And that's just ground vehicles.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 22, 2007)

drgondog said:


> As long as we are playing what if on the course of Britain, USSR, Germany and Japan - take into account possible course of action for Britain (and France) not declaring War in September 1939.
> 
> Possibility exists that while Germany consolidates Poland - that he decides NOT to attack westward. There were enough Generals that didn't want the war to continue arguing against it. So say Britain says 'not me'.
> 
> ...



*Very interesting though, some complex dynamics here.*


----------



## drgondog (Nov 22, 2007)

freebird said:


> *Very interesting though, some complex dynamics here.*



Freebird - I think in my scenario that I would far better have Britain as the surviving Ally thyan France in my scenario simply because of the Commonwealth, the technical competence, the tenacity and last but not least, the question of France's ability to hold off Germany in the West..

There is no evidence to support France NOT employing same Maginot Line tactics - but equally unsure whether Germany attacks France absent declaration of war..

And, in my possible universe', there is no iota of evidence that we ally with France.


----------



## Gman (Nov 22, 2007)

It seems that ego is getting in the way of this topic, rather than objectivity. The US certainly played a major role in the liberation of Europe in terms of manpower, material, money, strategy, tactics, etc. But all Allied combatants played key roles; many of whom go largely unsung (various resistance movements, civilian overt/ passive resistance, etc.). It is argueable that the US actually 'saved' Europe, but hard to argue that nations role in breaking the U-Boat strangle hold on England, the Lend-Lease act that provided much needed war material for Britain and the Soviet Union and the various other overt/ covert contributions both before and after its entry into that conflagration. It seems to me that the point of this topic is moot and probably confrontational for some.


----------



## Gman (Nov 22, 2007)

It seems that ego is getting in the way of this topic, rather than objectivity. The US certainly played a major role in the liberation of Europe in terms of manpower, material, money, strategy, tactics, etc. But all Allied combatants played key roles; many of whom go largely unsung (various resistance movements, civilian overt/ passive resistance, etc.). It is argueable that the US actually 'saved' Europe, but hard to argue that nations contribution in breaking the U-Boat strangle hold on England, the Lend-Lease act that provided much needed war material for Britain and the Soviet Union and the various other overt/ covert contributions both before and after its entry into that conflagration. It seems to me that the point of this topic is moot and probably confrontational for some.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 22, 2007)

Gman said:


> It seems that ego is getting in the way of this topic, rather than objectivity. But all Allied combatants played key roles; many of whom go largely unsung It seems to me that the point of this topic is moot and probably confrontational for some.



Gman - Hi Gman, I don't disagree that many nations played a part, I don't think that any one nation can say it "won" the war. It seems like the original poll question about "Did the US save" has just about run it's course.

Drgondog posed a hypothetical question about what would happen if the US stayed neutral, would Britain be able to continue fighting? I am suggesting some strategies that they might have used if that was the case. Anyone is welcome to join in on the debate.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 22, 2007)

I will continue with part 2 of my "12 step plan" for Britain.

Just to clarify Drgondog, I am assuming here that these are measures that can be taken after BoB, say Nov 40, (maybe the isolationists have the majority in Congress) when it becomes clear that the US will not help the UK.

If I went back any earlier there are too many other variables (eg. France doesn't fall, or Sealion succeeds in July of '40.)



#4*Maintain Air Superiority over all areas where the British Army Royal Navy are deployed *

After the Battle of France, it should be clear that where the Germans control the air, (such as Poland, France after May 17 '40, Holland, Norway, etc.) they are able to roam free with Stuka's bombers, shifting the battle heavily in their favor. Where the Germans failed to maintain clear air superiority, ie. BoB Dunkirk, the Army Navy could still operate. 

In Nov of 1940, the Chief of the Air Staff post would be given not to Portal, but the most senior Air Marshal - Hugh Dowding. His directives: 1) maintain air control over British Empire territory, 2) develop better Army support aircraft tactics. (remember the Fairey "Battle's" in France!) 3) Maintain Bomber Command operations, but to avoid excessive losses. 4) Improve Coastal Command A/S operations (as in #1)

The British should build more fighters, at a cost of slightly less bomber production. Dowding would not make the "Trenchard" mistake of putting too much emphasis on heavy bombers at the cost of fighters attack bombers. Also as there is less help from the US, it becomes more important to stay ahead in fighter production, to prevent "Sealion 1941" The British need to concentrate on fighter production, by cancelling poorly performing designs, and having the manufacturers switch to making Spitfires or Hurricanes. From 1940 - 1942 the British aircraft industry is still making approx 30 Battle's 25 Defiants per month, I would have Boulton Paul Fairey switch to producing Spitfires Hurricanes. (Boulton Paul also made "Roc's" under licence!) The Defiant was later successful as a night fighter, but it was not until mid '41 that a small enough radar set was available for it. I would also stop production of the Avro "Manchester" (about 18 per month) and have them wait until the Lancaster was ready for production. I would see if the aircraft companies with available production (Avro, Blackburn etc.) could make the Douglas Boston under licence, or failing that, Beaufighters.


#5 * No Ground forces sent to Greece!*

The choice to send British ground troops to Greece was a disaster! They sent 56,000 men, 8,000 vehicles tanks to Greece. The British should send some supplies fighters to Greece, maybe even a few squadrons, but the British lost 12,000 men and all their vehicles guns. When the troops were removed from N. Africa, Rommel was able to push the British back and regain the ground lost by the Italians. I would however keep forces on Crete to use as a naval air base. If the NZ troops had even SOME of the equipment that was lost in Greece, they could have easily held Crete. (During the defence of Crete Freyburg had only 35 aircraft and NINE tanks). As it was, it was a very tough operation for the Germans, they very nearly lost the battle.

The Greeks did quite well against the Italians, but could not stop the Germans. However the loss of British troops would not affect the battle that much, as the Greeks had 14 divisions, the British 2.5 I would give the Greeks support by sending arms fighters, and using long range bombers where possible.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Nov 22, 2007)

I've already stated my reasons for France not being able to take the offensive in 1939-40 in previous posts. When it comes to the _defense_ of France, I have a slightly differing view.

As for the FR and UK declaration of war against Germany, they were honor-bound to do so by previous treaties with Poland. Hitler himself stated he was surprised that the French and British would actually honor this agreement. Poland's geographical situation prevented any direct aid to affect the outcome. Furthermore, the fact that the invasion of Poland was a COMBINED invasion by Germany and Soviet Russia was more than enough reason for the French and British to be reluctant in attacking Germany directly. Given the strong communist movements in both countries, especially in France in the labor unions, there was a genuine fear of popular upheaval in the event of a war against both the Germans _and_ the Soviets. 

As for the Maginot Line, it's primary fault lie in the fact that Belgium's neutrality prevented it from becoming the the real defensive wall it was meant to be. Initial plans were to have it go into Belgium and eventually connect with the fortress of Eben Emael. Not only did Belgium's declaration to remain neutral put a stop to this, it also prevented their French and British counterparts from holding joint exercises and conferences to ensure some kind of unison. This would never happen. As a result, the French were forced to improvise defenses along the Franco-Belgian border, defenses which amounted to nothing more than a series of trenches, ditches, and fortified ground defenses. Certainly nothing like the Maginot Line. Even with the Ardennes left exposed, had the FULL plan of the Maginot Line been realized, I seriously doubt the Germans would have attempted a two pronged attack in the North _AND_ the East. 

Also keep in mind that the Maginot Line troops consisted not only of fortress garrisons, but also of special interval troops between actual forts. These troops were meant to fight off any attack attempting to exploit the areas between the forts. Unfortunately, as the German breakthrough in the Meuse-Sedan region progressed, these interval troops were withdrawn from the line to help plug in the gaps being created by the breakout. Nonetheless, they were effective in inflivting damage on the Germans: One of these gaps was at the hinge of the line, at the Northern most part in a town called Stonne, where the German suffered over 10% of all their casualties of the Battle of France.

In my opinion, the greatest fault in the Allies (FR and UK) lay in the fact that despite the failure of the Norway campaign, they learned nothing from it in terms of joint operations, communications, and in trusting one another. Instead, the failure of the overall campaign only led to more distrust and suspicion of eachother. Also, contrary to post-war myth-making, most French troops along the Franco-Belgian border (1er Armee, Class A troops) and Maginot Line troops were fairly regularly trained and drilled (as opposed to their Class B and reserve troops counterparts in the Ardennes sector.). They also saw the British presence in northern France simply as one taking up space and taking residence in defensive works already made prepared before their arrival. 

At which point I'd like to comment on the statements below as hilarious, and with all due respect to *drgondog*, I must wholeheartedly disagree with his assesment, on a point by point basis:



drgondog said:


> Freebird - I think in my scenario that I would far better have Britain as the surviving Ally thyan France in my scenario simply because of the Commonwealth, the technical competence, the tenacity and last but not least, the question of France's ability to hold off Germany in the West...



I would say just the exact opposite. What saved the BEF in 1940 was *NOT* superior technical competence, tenacity, or the question of France's ability to hold off the Germans in the West. The BEF was saved for one reason and one reason only: the envious fact that there is a 21 miles (34Km) moat of cold deep water between England and France. The decision to put General Gort in charge of the BEF was disastrous one for the French and Belgians, particulary for the Belgians. Most European historians view Gort's decision to withdraw the BEF before even the 6th full day of the Blitz as nothing less than cut-'n-run. The premise of the decision to withdraw, that France has already lost the battle, is astonishing since Gort and the BEF had no appreciation yet of what had happened at Sedan. Secondly, given that the BEF was on Belgian's _right_ , their withdrawal insured that the Belgians would be forced with their backs to the sea and no alternative but to capitulate. Given that the both the French and the Belgians did everything they could to accomodate Gen. Gort to give the BEF only a small portion of the Dyle Line to defend, a mere 20 km. of it, I find that the British explaination to withdraw was based on their assumption that the French and Belgians had "thrown in the towel" to be nothing less than preposterous. If there was anyone running away as fast as they could, it was the BEF, with the French and Belgians forced to somehow close and defend the gap, which they would not be able to do.



drgondog said:


> There is no evidence to support France NOT employing same Maginot Line tactics



I can only reiterate what I stated above, that the Maginot Line was to complement the Belgian defenses. If we are to extrapolate, then we can blame the French for not thinking far enough ahead into the furture, as Belgium's neutrality was the obvious sticking point to a coordinated defense by the three main allies.



drgondog said:


> but equally unsure whether Germany attacks France absent declaration of war...



Now this _IS_ an interesting question. One must be reminded however, that Germany had no problems attacking 3 neutral countries without a declaration of war - Belgium, Holland, and Denmark.




drgondog said:


> And, in my possible universe', there is no iota of evidence that we ally with France.



I would argue the opposite. The presence of the BEF gave the Germans no deterence in invading Beglium-France, and did not affect the overall outcome in anyway. I'm of the opinion that the French and Belgians could have improvised a better defense on the go without the BEF suddenly withdrawing and leaving a 20 km. gap in the Allied lines. Thus I would say that, in hindsight, there was no reason for the French and Belgians to rely on the British. The Allied epedition on Norway ended in a fiasco, and France should have made plans to look out after herself first, damned the BEF.

The whole debacle in the North can be summed up, IMO, in an analogy I've created. We have 3 guys in a leaky boat in the middle of the ocean. They're all screwing it up in some way or another, and not one will listen to the other. Before any of the three can determine what the future has in store for them, one decides prematurely that all is lost, and he pulls his plug and dives overboard, being fairly sure he will be rescued. He is, and when he's back on land, he is surrounded by hoardes of reporters asking why the boat sank. What do you think he'll say? Since he's the only survivor, safe bet to say that he'll fault the sinking entirely on his drowned shipmates before taking any blame for himself.


----------



## Glider (Nov 22, 2007)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> The decision to put General Gort in charge of the BEF was disastrous one for the French and Belgians, particulary for the Belgians. Most European historians view Gort's decision to withdraw the BEF before even the 6th full day of the Blitz as nothing less than cut-'n-run. The premise of the decision to withdraw, that France has already lost the battle, is astonishing since Gort and the BEF had no appreciation yet of what had happened at Sedan.



As I understand the time line the decision to withdraw the BEF was taken on the 23rd May after the battle of Arras on the 20th May.
On the 15th May Churchill was told by the French Prime Minister 'We are defeated, the battle in lost'
On the 16th May Churchill flew to France and the French Goverment burning its archives and evacuating the Capital. He was also told by the French High Command that there was no strategic reserves.

That being the case, can you blame him for authorising the withdrawl of the BEF?


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Nov 22, 2007)

Glider said:


> As I understand the time line the decision to withdraw the BEF was taken on the 23rd May after the battle of Arras on the 20th May.
> On the 15th May Churchill was told by the French Prime Minister 'We are defeated, the battle in lost'
> On the 16th May Churchill flew to France and the French Goverment burning its archives and evacuating the Capital. He was also told by the French High Command that there was no strategic reserves.
> 
> That being the case, can you blame him for authorising the withdrawl of the BEF?




You are refering to the decision to withdraw the BEF from France altogether, via Dunkirk. Gort's decision to withdraw the BEF from the front was his alone, though he was not reprimanded for it. My point is that given the horrible communcation situation at the time, Gort could not possibly have known the overall situation to justify withdrawing the BEF from the front. His decision was made justified after the war by those claiming that Gort "saved" the BEF, though it was based mostly on assumptions.
This decision, combined with the fact that he gave his French and Belgian counterparts the vaguest of notions of what was about to happen was borderline treachery, as there is no evidence whatsoever that Gort fully stated his intentions were to withdraw the BEf should it be warranted. 

Instead, we have over 60 years of myth making by mostly British historians of supposed French cowardice, their alledged unwillingness to fight and propensity to run at the first sign of danger. This had unfortunately been swallowed as truth hook-line-and sinker by many here in the US who choose to ignore comparative history. Thankfully, through much comparative study, as well as looking through works written by others than the UK/USA, one quickly realizes that the British share just as much blame for the failure of the Northern front as do their French and Belgian counterparts, and a quick look at the casualties suffered by the 3 main allies in the battle of 1940 supports this.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 22, 2007)

I must disagree with you on some points, but to preserve continuity I have posted my reply on the "Fall of France" thread, as this thread is "What if USA was neutral.



Arsenal VG-33 said:


> Instead, we have over 60 years of myth making by mostly British historians of supposed French cowardice, their alledged unwillingness to fight


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Nov 22, 2007)

freebird said:


> I must disagree with you on some points, but to preserve continuity I have posted my reply on the "Fall of France" thread, as this thread is "What if USA was neutral.



Understood. It confused me at first, by all my following posts concerning 1940 will go there.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 22, 2007)

I still havent seen any convincing evidence that the Commonwealth could have beaten Germany without US help.

My stament still stands. The US made the differnce in ensuring an allied victory.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 3, 2007)

I say no. Without the US industry or the involvement of the US miltaries, I do not see a victory. I see fighting to a standstill. But it did take the combined effort of all Allied nations to ensure the defeat of Germany, Italy, and Japan.

Here is a good article similar to this topic. 
Could Germany have Won WW II?


----------



## drgondog (Dec 4, 2007)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> I've already stated my reasons for France not being able to take the offensive in 1939-40 in previous posts. When it comes to the _defense_ of France, I have a slightly differing view.
> 
> 
> As for the Maginot Line, it's primary fault lie in the fact that Belgium's neutrality prevented it from becoming the the real defensive wall it was meant to be. Initial plans were to have it go into Belgium and eventually connect with the fortress of Eben Emael. Not only did Belgium's declaration to remain neutral put a stop to this, it also prevented their French and British counterparts from holding joint exercises and conferences to ensure some kind of unison. This would never happen. As a result, the French were forced to improvise defenses along the Franco-Belgian border, defenses which amounted to nothing more than a series of trenches, ditches, and fortified ground defenses. Certainly nothing like the Maginot Line. Even with the Ardennes left exposed, had the FULL plan of the Maginot Line been realized, I seriously doubt the Germans would have attempted a two pronged attack in the North _AND_ the East.
> ...



I really am curious as to your strategy for France a.) defeating Germany, or b.) preventing Germany from defeating and occupying France. 

Start with declaration of War by France and Great Britain not honoring the treaty and then go in any direction you wish.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 4, 2007)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> Originally Posted by Arsenal VG-33
> I've already stated my reasons for France not being able to take the offensive in 1939-40 in previous posts. When it comes to the defense of France, I have a slightly differing view.



I really am curious as to your strategy for France a.) defeating Germany, or b.) preventing Germany from defeating and occupying France. 

Start with declaration of War by France and Great Britain not honoring the treaty and then go in any direction you wish.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 4, 2007)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> I've already stated my reasons for France not being able to take the offensive in 1939-40 in previous posts. When it comes to the _defense_ of France, I have a slightly differing view.
> 
> 
> As for the Maginot Line, it's primary fault lie in the fact that Belgium's neutrality prevented it from becoming the the real defensive wall it was meant to be. Initial plans were to have it go into Belgium and eventually connect with the fortress of Eben Emael. Not only did Belgium's declaration to remain neutral put a stop to this, it also prevented their French and British counterparts from holding joint exercises and conferences to ensure some kind of unison. This would never happen. As a result, the French were forced to improvise defenses along the Franco-Belgian border, defenses which amounted to nothing more than a series of trenches, ditches, and fortified ground defenses. Certainly nothing like the Maginot Line. Even with the Ardennes left exposed, had the FULL plan of the Maginot Line been realized, I seriously doubt the Germans would have attempted a two pronged attack in the North _AND_ the East.
> ...



You seem rather "down" on Britain as sole reason for France's defeat -


----------



## Udet (Dec 4, 2007)

Syscom...and you will not see it for there is none...the debate on this matter is almost over.

I can not believe several of the arguments i can read here that point out some really bizarre idea that even without the entrance of the USA into the war, "Germany would still eventually lose the war"...unbelievable and unconceivable. 

Keep the feet on the ground: by even suggesting such a thing you are likewise suggesting it is the Soviet Union and Great Britain defeating Germany. This constitutes a drama far beyond rubbish; the utmost tragedy in the anals of reason. The idea of the Red Army reaching the Channel Coast is as laughable as, say, the idea of the Wehrmacht as a tool for genocide.

It seems like some people forget the fact ~13.5 % of the ENTIRE Soviet population died in a matter of only FOUR YEARS -with USA involvement: Lend Lease + "Front Opening Services" rendered-...and this will not include the millions of wounded and crippled as a consequence of the war. Do you have any idea of the impact of such toll? Not even Mr. Smiley Dzhugashvili and his circle of ruthless hellish thugs have the magical powers to maintain such situation for any longer period of time.

The fact that even with the might of the military industry of the U.S.A. fully and directly involved in Europe the battle was so costly to the allies should serve some purpose in suggesting Germany was too powerful for the UK and USSR to deal with, let alone defeat it.

I stick to my vision: without the USA in Europe, Germany crushes the USSR for good before the end of 1942, then Great Britain seeks peace with Germany.

After finishing off the Soviet Union -with a large chunk of its westernmost areas lost to Germany-, i do not even see Germany turning its eyes back to England with a military purpose in mind.

Without the USA jumping in, and with the bolsheviks taken care of, i see Great Britain losing the bully attitude overnight, becoming strangely willingful to arrange peace.

As for some funny numbers herein provided with regard to the "minimum" figure Lend Lease implied in favour of the soviets, let´s not forget that the Soviets are obssessive about the issue; if it served their statistical (propaganda) purposes, then death -in accordance with medical terminology: a permanent cessation of all vital bodily functions- will definitely not mean what it means across the bloody earth. They´d re-define what "death" means in the case of soviet soldiers shot in the head or torn apart by a German artilley barrage. Zombies did exist during WW2, and they came mainly from the Soviet Union.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 4, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> I still havent seen any convincing evidence that the Commonwealth could have beaten Germany without US help.
> 
> My stament still stands. The US made the differnce in ensuring an allied victory.



If you mean victory as in planting the flag over the Reichstag, then yes without US help the British would not have "Victory" as the troops occuping Germany would be Russian. The question was could The UK Russia defeat Germany? I believe they could. If "losing" is being invaded then Britain would not "lose". Would it be a "win" for the Western world if there is no West Germany, only Communist dominated Europe? You can judge for yourself




plan_D said:


> None of this discussion can be proved, it can only be backed by the correct evidence to make people think about alternate possibilities. I think that Britain and her Commonwealth could defeat Germany in a war of attrition with the aid of the Soviet Union, and trade with the U.S. In the completely unlikely situation where the U.S decides to cripple her economy by not trading with any of the beligerant nations then Britain would struggle, but defeat would still not be certain.
> 
> The Soviet Union should be the most thankful of Western support; it's appropriate to mention that 14% of British tank production was sent to the Soviet Union.



Well put Plan D.

To succeed in this scenario the British need to do 5 things.

1.) Maintain enough shipping keep losses from U-boats to a managable level.

2.) send enough aid to Russia in the first 12-15 months to keep them in the war and prevent Germany from defeating them

3.) Maintain enough air ground strength in W. Europe Africa to prevent the Germans from sending any more to the Eastern Front 

4.) Defend her Empire territory.

5.) Keep up the pressure in N. Africa



Udet said:


> Syscom...and you will not see it for there is none...the debate on this matter is almost over.
> 
> *??? The debate is over when we all finish discussing it - what's your point?*
> 
> ...


----------



## Glider (Dec 4, 2007)

Some very good points there Freebird


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 5, 2007)

I dont know if the British infantry was capable of defeating the Germans in a war of mobility in France.

Lets face it, the Germans had the superior infantry eqmt and tactics compared to the Commonwealth. It was only overwhelming airpower that degraded the Germans to the point where they collapsed. And I don't see the commonwealth having that capability before the LW had the jets.

Plus..... to think Montgomery was as capable as Patton was in fighting a mobile and fluid battle is absurd. Any potential victory the Commonwealth had in a hypothetical victory in an invasion of France, would be stillborne because of the inability of the Brits to fight a fast moving war.

It still stands..... The Russians had the ability to defeat the Germans alone. The Commonwealth didnt have the ability to defeat the Germans without Russian or US help.


----------



## Udet (Dec 5, 2007)

Syscom, how come it still stands?

Tell me in the briefest form possible how is it that you think the USSR could beat Germany alone -meaning zero USA involvement in Europe-.

The Germans had ~58 divisions deployed for the Normandy campaign plus another 8 divisions stationed in what we call the Western Front. Also there were 11 divisions stationed in Norway during said period of time. 

Not to mention the more than 1,000,000 men that were deployed for manning and controlling the aerial defence system of the Reich (courtesy of the increasingly powerful presence of the 8th, 9th and 15th Air Forces). You are not thinking that without the presence of these huge U.S. air fleets in Europe the size of the air defence of the Reich would have remained the same are you? 

Without the USA involved, it is more than reasonable to assume the bulk of the forces i am making mention of would instead have been allocated to the fight in the east.

When the British attempted a kind of a return to Continental Europe in the summer of 1942, a time when the USA was an official combatant, the Germans crushed it with the utmost easiness.

Also without USA jumping into the party zone in Europe, "Operation Torch" does not take place as we know it did occur in late 1942...so who knows what the hell happens in the North African/Mediterranean front as well; possibly an extra number of divisions deployed by the Heer in the sector -mainly in Italia- are also brought forward to slam the soviets a bit further and a bit harder.

Throughout 1944 the Heer deployed beteween 22 and 29 divisions in Italia due to the British-Commonwealth/USA gains in the Mediterranean sector...so if you erase the critical contribution and presence of the USA in the sector since previous significant military operations in the area (no Operation Torch, etc.), and again, who knows what happens; one thing for sure those 22-29 divisions deployed -depending on the month of 1944- are unnecessary in Italia and go elsewhere, to where the main fight is: eastern front.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 5, 2007)

Not sure I am understanding Syscom's comment or not. But what I am reading or getting from it (correct me if I am wrong Syscom), but you think Russia could of defeated Germany by itself? 

From what year on? 1941? or when?

Clearly in my mind if there was no Allies, if it was just Russia vs Germany from 1941 on........Germany would of beaten Russia in IMO.

Would there of been Germany Allies involved? Italy, Rom, Hung, Japan, etc?

If yes then it would of been a bigger defeat and faster win by Germany. IMO

Please explain that comment more clearly Syscom so we know 100% what you are saying (include years involved).


----------



## Udet (Dec 5, 2007)

Quote:

_Syscom...and you will not see it for there is none...the debate on this matter is almost over.

??? The debate is over when we all finish discussing it - what's your point?_

The point? The deliberate willingful blindness of some people who have issues with a quite simple premise: No USA in Europe, No victory over Germany. You can push it in farther as you wish the problem being the debate will commence losing substance.


Quote:
_I can not believe several of the arguments i can read here that point out some really bizarre idea that even without the entrance of the USA into the war, "Germany would still eventually lose the war"...unbelievable and unconceivable.

Nobody said "Germany would lose" What the question was is it POSSIBLE for the UK Russia to beat Germany -Yes_

It´s been said by a few Germany would still get beaten, read the thread from the beginning. And my answer to the question, well you know it: NO, due to the reasons i have been stating.

Quote:

_Keep the feet on the ground: by even suggesting such a thing you are likewise suggesting it is the Soviet Union and Great Britain defeating Germany. This constitutes a drama far beyond rubbish; the utmost tragedy in the anals of reason. The idea of the Red Army reaching the Channel Coast is as laughable as, say, the idea of the Wehrmacht as a tool for genocide.

As laughable as the Japanese thinking that they could put almost all the US capital ships out of action destroying 200+ aircraft at Pearl Harbour, for the loss of 29 aircraft. (against a US military that was pre-warned had radar)

As laughable as the British destroying an Italian army in 1940 that had more tanks, planes was 5 times the size.

Or perhaps as laughable as the Germans thinking they could defeat the French nation in 40 days, considering that the Allies had more divisions, tanks, planes and had a formidible defensive Maginot line along more thn half the border.

So anybody that has an opinion different than your is "Rubbish"?_

No, not like that. I respect and value opinions that are at variance with my own, but one enters the realm of Rubbish when resisting evidence that is as sound as 1 ton of solid concrete falling on top of your head.

So you are trying to apply some sort of universal principle that might indicate anything´s possible; then when you are committed to an effort it will yield good results sooner or later. I like the notion, also i live by such principle. But in the case we are discussing it is not likely to apply.

Do not forget we are referring to some type of scenario that did not occur.

And yes, the notion of the Red Army steam rolling all before it, reaching the Channel Coasts belongs in the Fantasy Realm of Walt Disney´s Classics.

So -repetitive- without the USA in Europe, you think Great Britain alone had the potential to open the extra-fronts that relieved the pressure in favour of the soviets?

That the Germans would not have had a large number of extra divisions available to form new Armies and/or Army Groups to slam the soviets?


----------



## Marcel (Dec 5, 2007)

Hi Udet,

Not wanting to disagree with you as I consider myself not an expert on this thing by a long shot, but just a question for me to learn from. Why do you think it is obvious that Germany would win the war with the USSR if no other country was involved? In my (amateuristic) view, the ruski's could have retreated as much as they wanted, sacrifice many more people and land than the Germans and in the end just let the germans run out of manpower. Not exactly an army steam rolling over the germans, but it would bring them a stale mate or even victory in the end.


----------



## Udet (Dec 5, 2007)

Marcel:

It was not necessary to occupy the entire territory of the Soviet Union. The word "necessary" as i used it here sounds hilarious...it was something well beyond the human and material potential of Germany. It was simply not contemplated.

To illustrate this better: in Germany´s plans, as outlined for Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of the USSR), the goal was to reach Arkhangelsk (Archangel in English), which is located in what perhaps is the northernmost sector of the European Continent (the White Sea), and to form a "barrier" that would follow its way south the Caspian Sea, thus erasing Russian presence in Europe. So not even in Hitler´s huge mind was the notion of taking the entire territory. Simply impossible.

Yes, it seems natural to see the immense soviet territory as natural space for retreating as deep as you want, and also to have your military industry either moved or erected in the depths of such vast land.

But wars in the fashion of World War Two can not last that too much time; it was too violent, to bloody and excessively costly. No more Peloponnesian or Punic Wars in this new style of waging war. To some extent it would seem most of us acknowledge WW2 lasted "only" 6 years...too little and too much at the same time.

Without the USA in Europe, i see the original goals of Barbarossa more than attainable...even with the events that took place, Wehrmacht units reached the shores of the Caspian Sea, near Astrakhan -southern Volga-...even if they did not remain there for too long, since the whole thing collapsed up North that sector in Stalingrad. (Also i have data yet to be confirmed but my suspicion is that some Luftwaffe units that saw action across the Don River bend and Stalingrad battles of 1942, might have flown real close to Asian territory -if not effectively over it- east/north east Stalingrad in recon and even combat missions -Kazakhstan-, but this is not the topic here...ok.

Even with all that space for retreating and even replacing its industry, all that German power that during the war got scattered away from the east is now used against the Soviets, the dimension of the German advance and victories would have eventually lead to political negotiation, even the demise of Smiley Dzhugashvili.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 5, 2007)

Even more Udet,

Could you imagine what would of happened if there was no BoB, no BoF, no Torch, no Africa......thousands of extra planes available.

Germany would never of lost control of the air in Russia. All those extra men and tanks/planes not used in Africa, Italy, France, Greece, Med., Norway.

Moscow would of fallen, their central hub of industry and transportation (not to mention capital). Stalingrad would of fallen, Leningrad would of fallen, oil fields would of fallen.

No lend lease help for Russia. LOL

Russia would of fallen or surrendered most likely before 44. 

As it was Germany almost had Moscow in 41 (within sight of Moscow), nearly Stalingrad in 42 (Russia only held are very small percentage of the city), Leningrad nearly starved to death. 

The total shock that Russia would of felt if all those extra losses in men and territory might of been just enough to make them surrender in 43.


----------



## Soren (Dec 5, 2007)

Good post Udet. I agree.

It seems hard for some people to realize just how much manpower material was used to defend the reich from aerial bombing, that and about 20% of the entire Wehrmacht was by 44 fighting the Western Allies. Just another 20% more manpower in the east and a million more men at home to help supply the troops and Stalingrad would've fallen quickly.


----------



## Udet (Dec 5, 2007)

Hunter, hello.

I agree for the most part, but i would think the BoB still happens and has the same outcome. Germany fails to crush the RAF to then switch the sight to the east.

I digress: if Germany beats the Soviet Union for good, i do not see Hitler turning its eyes back on England with the purpose of invasion and occupation.
Many times i´ve said it: the war in Europe could have lasted almost half the time it actually did. Millions of lives could have been saved.

As for all the other events, i agree with you completely.

After having read so many books and articles about the eastern front, i find it amazing to realize there are countless historians which see "Barbarossa" doomed virtually from its inception. I am bewildered.

With all mistakes and unwise decisions made they were still so damn close to beat the Soviets i can not believe there are people who truly believe things could not have happened differently if some pieces on the chessboard would have been placed correctly.

Acknowledged is the fact Germany had already scattered its forces throughout Europe prior to June 22, 1941. The day Barbarossa was launched the Heer had ~50 divisions still stationed in the West. It is relevant to notice that by such time, the USA was not still in the war though.

But, let´s move to a period of time when the USA was now a combatant: 1943; by this year the contribution of the USA to the allied war effort had become more than significant. Torch had already taken place, and the allied presence in the West/Mediterranean seemed more threatening than ever. Throughout the entire 1943, the Heer maintained an average of ~50 divisions stationed in the West only...think of any % of such divisions sent to the East, say, for Kursk.

Look, i will try to search some of my Eastern Front books, where i recall reading on a large number of cases where fast counter-attacks carried out by German units or parts of German units -Panzer units for example- managed to stabilize critical front sectors during late of 1943 and 1944, at least for a few days...a time when things really commenced falling in the East. 

Most times such units were greatly outnumbered and were even close to exhaustion due to constant re-deployments from one point or sector to another for dealing with Soviet penetrations and/or attacks....if things like these were attained by small units experiencing weeks and weeks of non-stop fierce combat, mostly outnumbered and even under strenght, think of the presence of several complete divisions that could not be there thanks to the essential help of the USA.

Soren, right!

The dimension of the Reich´s air defence system was astounding, and as i put it, that was mainly courtesy of the massive 8th, 9th and 15th Air Forces; without such fleets involved the size and effort invested in such venture would of been way less significant, releasing a huge number of men and material that goes to the east.


----------



## Captn javy Wilson (Dec 5, 2007)

nah I still say Germany would had it.


----------



## Soren (Dec 5, 2007)

Imagine what difference another 650,000 highly trained troops would've made at Stalingrad! Thats the same amount as that committed to the fighting in the first place! Any pincer movement by the Soviets would've been out of the question! 

And here's another little benefit: Winterclothing actually being fraighted to the frontline troops, another million support personnel being more than enough to ensure a timely delivery.


----------



## dark child (Dec 5, 2007)

lucky13 what does beer have to do with anything?


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 5, 2007)

Soren, you underestimate the damage that Hitler would have inflicted in the Army.

All those extra troops and supplies would be squandered.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 5, 2007)

Udet said:


> There is no way the Soviet Union would have "steam rolled" all the way to the Channel coasts if the USA decides to remain neutral...it´s become some sort of allied mantra.
> 
> *In this you are correct, if the Russians can defeat Germany in the "No USA" scenario, then it would be a long, slow, hard, bloody fight. No "Steam-roller"*
> 
> ...






Udet said:


> The real issue here should be that given the status of things in Europe in the early 1940s, it was Great Britain who needed the U.S.A. and not vice-versa. They needed the help of the U.S. for the very simple and pristine reason Germany was an enemy to tough and too powerful to deal with all by themselves. The Heer was not an enemy, it was THE enemy. British/Commonwealth army forces were decisively routed and/or defeated by the Heer wherever they clashed until Al-Alamein.
> 
> PERIOD.



NO, WRONG. In November 1941 in operation Crusader AGAINST ROMMEL following the battles of 18 - 26 Nov Dec 2 the British forced the Africa Korps to withdraw, abandoning 100's of tanks. The British regained Cyrenaica and relieved the siege of Tobruk. The British had 18,000 casualties, while the Axis had 24,500 and the British took 36,500 prisoners. 

So what kind of decisive rout/defeat was this for the British?  

(figures quoted from WWII by Brig. P Young p.84)


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 5, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Soren, you underestimate the damage that Hitler would have inflicted in the Army.
> 
> All those extra troops and supplies would be squandered.



Explain this comment more Syscom.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 5, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Explain this comment more Syscom.



If germany had to fight Russia without interference from Hitler and his sycophants, then I'd wager the odds of Germany winning as 3-2.

But since Hitler is Hitler, id say its still a 50-50 chance for either side (germany or Russia).

One thing to ponder on about the US contribution to the war in Europe..... it wasn't untill summer of 1943 that there were enough troops and amphib ships for the US and Brits to be a factor in Italy.

The Germans essentially lost the war in Russia at Stalingrad long before the US's power was felt.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 6, 2007)

Udet said:


> Marcel:
> 
> It was not necessary to occupy the entire territory of the Soviet Union. The word "necessary" as i used it here sounds hilarious...it was something well beyond the human and material potential of Germany. It was simply not contemplated....



Thanks for the explanation, Udet. Yes I agree with you that it is definately possible, the germans would have reached their goal.

Another question to all: Could the western allies have won without the USSR?


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 6, 2007)

Marcel said:


> ....
> 
> Another question to all: Could the western allies have won without the USSR?



Once the allies had the atomic bomb, then they would win.


----------



## Soren (Dec 6, 2007)

Again syscom3 you're forgetting the resources spent on the Allied air raids the campaign in Africa.

With 650,000 more troops the Soviets would've lost Stalingrad for sure, esp. when the German troops were fully equipped with winterclothing which undoubtedly would've been the case with an extra million support personnel. The LW would be present in stronger numbers as-well.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 6, 2007)

Soren said:


> Again syscom3 you're forgetting the resources spent on the Allied air raids the campaign in Africa.
> 
> With 650,000 more troops the Soviets would've lost Stalingrad for sure, esp. when the German troops were fully equipped with winterclothing which undoubtedly would've been the case with an extra million support personnel. The LW would be present in stronger numbers as-well.



And youre forgetting the impact Hitler had on the conduct of the war. And why should the lack of a US pesence in the war mean the German army would have had all those extra winter uniforms? They didnt have them in the first place because of a failure in supply.


----------



## Civettone (Dec 6, 2007)

I agree with Syscom. First, the war would eventually have been decided by the A-bomb. No matter how much Germany conquered, dropping A-bombs on German cities would eventually have brought Germany to its knees. 

Also, the notion of winter clothing is a farce. There was winter clothing - the Germans were preparing to occupy the country in the Winter, were they not? - but the problematic supply system meant they didn't arrive at the troops in time when the winter cold suddenly appeared. Plus Soren, this was mainly in 1941, not in 1942.

Kris


----------



## Freebird (Dec 6, 2007)

Udet said:


> Keep the feet on the ground: by even suggesting such a thing you are likewise suggesting it is the Soviet Union and Great Britain defeating Germany. This constitutes a drama far beyond rubbish; the utmost tragedy in the anals of reason.
> 
> *So anybody that has an opinion different than your is "Rubbish"?*
> 
> No, not like that. I respect and value opinions that are at variance with my own, but one enters the realm of Rubbish when resisting evidence that is as sound as 1 ton of solid concrete falling on top of your head.



*You havn't presented any "evidence" only opinions.*



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No I dont forget how crucial it is. Germany was not going to defeat Russia. They had a chance in 1942 and they lost it. After that it was just a long march back to Berlin.



This is my opinion too. The Germans were on the offensive until Stalingrad, after that it is only defending, it had reached a point where the Russians out-produce Germany, it is no longer possible to win. 

My argument is that there would be *no reduction* in the level of help the Soviets get before Stalingrad {*see below*} (both material by occuping German forces in the west), by 1943 the level of help to the Soviets will fall off, but by that time it is too late for Germany to win, by then the Soviets are producing enough tanks, aircraft, guns divisions to defeat Germany. The critical aid (IMO) is that that arrives in USSR by Sept 1942, which would be in time to be used in the November counter attack. (assumes that 6 weeks is required to unload supplies, train, assemble, do maintainance, ship by rail to the front.

*note* As I have written in a previous post, this assumes that the British completes the rail link to Egypt early 1941 to the Soviet Union through Persia in early fall 1941. Prior to Sept 1942 the Soviets would not get approximately 550 US tanks (Lee's!!) and about 300 aircraft. The British would be able to supply *at least* this many British built ones because:

1.) The supplies would be shipped to Nigeria, then by rail to Russia, avoiding the "Murmansk" route where 80 - 90% of the shipping losses occured. While the Soviet got those (approx) 550 US tanks 300 US aircraft prior to Sept 1942, the total # of supplies to Russia lost by sinking in 1941 1942 was 1,226 tanks 656 aircraft. At LEAST half of those would not have been lost if they had not been sent on the Murmansk route. 

{Supplies to Russia figures quoted from Churchill's "Hinge of Fate" p. 241}

2.) Canadian production would be much higher, because they would not have been scaled back because of the US entry into the war - In early 1942 _"Plans for a large increase in production at Canadian facilities was dropped because it was realized that US production of Sherman tanks would be more than sufficient for Allied needs"_ {Tanks of the World 1915-1945 - C.Ellis Galahad books}



Soren said:


> It seems hard for some people to realize just how much manpower material was used to defend the reich from aerial bombing, that and about 20% of the entire Wehrmacht was by 44 fighting the Western Allies. Just another 20% more manpower in the east and a million more men at home to help supply the troops and Stalingrad would've fallen quickly.



Soren, the 1 million men defending Germany in 1942 were defending Germany against BRITISH bombers, not American. Remember that the German high command was shocked at the destruction of the 1,000 bomber raid which destroyed most of Cologne in May 1942. This was a BRITISH operation. The US air force did not begin operations over Germany until Aug 1942, and they only had 24 aircrews. The US effort did not make a big impact until 1943.




> On 4 July 1942, Independence Day, six American crews from the 15th Bombardment Group (Light) together with six RAF crews were despatched from RAF Swanton Morley, Norfolk, on a daylight sweep against four German airfields in the Netherlands. It was the first time American airmen had flown in American-built bombers against a German target, but although it was important historically, the raid was not an unqualified success.
> 
> In August 1942, the 92nd and 301st Bomb Groups arrived to join Brigadier General Ira C. Eaker's rapidly increasing air force.
> 
> It took time to get the new groups ready for combat and training was lacking in many areas. Colonel Frank A. Armstrong, had mid-August 24 crews ready for combat. Meanwhile, as arguments went on behind the scenes about whether bombing in daylight was possible over heavily defended targets in Europe or even that the B-17 Flying Fortress and B-24 Liberators’ bomb-carrying capacity and their armament would be enough, the first Fortresses strike of the war was scheduled for August 17, 1942.





syscom3 said:


> One thing to ponder on about the US contribution to the war in Europe..... it wasn't untill summer of 1943 that there were enough troops and amphib ships for the US and Brits to be a factor in Italy.
> 
> The Germans essentially lost the war in Russia at Stalingrad long before the US's power was felt.



Exactly my point Syscom



Udet said:


> After having read so many books and articles about the eastern front, i find it amazing to realize there are countless historians which see "Barbarossa" doomed virtually from its inception. I am bewildered.
> 
> *You are correct, there are many that say "Barbarossa" was a big blunder by Hitler, but I don't agree. Hitler had to attack the USSR, or they would have built up and attacked Germany. The Germans had a good chance to win, but only until 1942, after that it is too late.*
> 
> ...



As Syscom had pointed out, the US troop strength in Europe was not a factor in 1942, so it does not affect the strength of German troopss in the West. Assume that in 1943 with only the UK in the war, US neutral, suppose the Germans could take 15 dvisions from France and send to Russia, for Kursk (leaving say 10 in Norway, 7 in the Balkans and 25 in France, Benelux, Denmark facing about 25 - 30 British divisions in the UK) {Remember also that some of these divisions in the west are needed to defend against partisans.}

Of those 15 divisions sent to Russia, only perhaps 2 or 3 would be armoured, and with Panzer III IV. The problem at Kursk was that the Russian anti-tank Guns were too powerful too many. The Panzer IV's wereheavily hit at Kursk, The Tigers could stand up better to the Russian guns, but there were not enough of them and they could not neutralize the Russian strongpoints to allow the German infantry to follow. I don't think the Germans could succeed at Kursk, even with an extra 3 panzer divisions a half dozen inf infantry div. (remember some of your "extra" infantry div's would be needed in other parts of the Russian front) Look how fast the front collapsed after Kursk, not just there but also Kharkov, Orel, Smolensk, and pushing back to Crimea the Dnieper



Udet said:


> The dimension of the Reich´s air defence system was astounding, and as i put it, that was mainly courtesy of the massive 8th, 9th and 15th Air Forces; without such fleets involved the size and effort invested in such venture would of been way less significant, releasing a huge number of men and material that goes to the east.



No, because in 1942 the US did not play a big role. Even without the USA the Germans would STILL have to have almost all of those (Flak Air defence) troops in the west because of the increasingly devastating British bombing. (ever heard of the Lancaster?)

The Nazi's had to do the maximum to defend against the British bombing, for psychological political reasons. After Hamburg was hit by Bomber Command, Adolf Galland remarked 
_"In every large town people said - {What happened at Hamburg yesterday could happen to us tomorrow} Berlin was evacuated with signs of panic The Terror of Hamburg spread to ever town of the Reich"_


----------



## Udet (Dec 7, 2007)

Really? Not that i really need to present any evidence for it is all out there by the tons for you to grab it.

In reality, i do not really care too much if my participation within the thread has taken place in the form of "opinion".

By the way, can you tell me what the difference between your participation and mine here is? Are yours opinions only? Or evidence perhaps? Please let me know.

Was my mentioning of Operation Torch, which among several things featured ~35,000 troops (3rd and 9th Infantry, 2nd Armored) and their equipment transported DIRECTLY from the USA, that is without touching the British bench, as clear indication of the Naval capabilities of the USA just an opinion or evidence?

You believe that with the US absent then Torch happens as it did?

Go back in this thread and read the summary i made of Royal Navy´s losses prior to the end of 1941, and tell me if this loss rate could have been sustained or made up for if the USA says a big "No" to the war. (Oh i was forgetting, would that summary also be considered "opinion" by your rigorious standards...or evidence?)


The Germans were on the offensive until Stalingrad? What about Kharkov and Kursk in 1943? (Is this an opinion or evidence?)

Yes, the soviets were producing large numbers of tanks, planes and artillery...but you are not going to compare the training program of, say, the VVS with that of the USAF are you?

No USA in Europe, no 8th, 9th 15th Air Forces...therefore the bulk of the Luftwaffe remains in the East, as opposed to the significant re-deployment of Jagdgeschwadern that took place during the second half of 1943 and 1944, when a significant number of fighter squadrons were brought west to attempt dealing with the USAF operations.

Supplies shipped to Nigeria? I am not sure of the potential of the Royal Navy in this regard...without the USA involved, i do not know if they can take care of the whole business on their own. 


Yes, Canadian production would be much higher but is the Royal Navy powerful enough to ensure sea lines remain "reasonably" safe and open to maintain Great Britain´s ability to continue waging the war? The U.S. will not be in the Atlantic escorting convoys and providing essential aeria cover.


You are suggesting the size of the Flak and Radar systems of the air defence of the Reich had the same size in terms of men and material committed observed for 1942 than it did for late 1943 and throughout 1944?

Are so sure that with -again and again- 8th, 9th and 15th AF´s absent, the RAF has the potential to pound German industry and civilians with the same intensity consequence of the presence of both RAF and USAF? No Super Free Bird...no USAF and the RAF has to some real nasty choices to make...continue bombing only at night -which would be odd for it would imply a direct benefit to the Germans-, or a combination of both daylight and nocturne raids...can they keep up with producing enough fighters, bombers and ships?


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 7, 2007)

Udet, the Brits were on the offensive in Africa after El Alamein, and would have eventually beat the Germans (in Africa), simply because the KM and Italians could not supply their forces. Even if the Torch never came off, the Commonwealth was in a position of getting stronger, qualitatively and quantitativly as compared to the Axis forces in the Med.

As for the LW contribution in Russia.... it was still another story of too little and too late. The Russian AF was simply going to beat the LW with numbers alone. The LW was not going to influence the campaigns in any menaingfull way.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Dec 7, 2007)

> Yes, Canadian production would be much higher but is the Royal Navy powerful enough to ensure sea lines remain "reasonably" safe and open to maintain Great Britain´s ability to continue waging the war? The U.S. will not be in the Atlantic escorting convoys and providing essential aeria cover.


I didn't know the Americans supplied convoy escorts for the Halifax - UK route. Afiak it was the Canadians in the west and the Brits in the east.

The Americans were hard pressed to escort the convoys in their own waters.

British controlled merchant shipping over 1,600 GRT (number/in thousands of gross tons)
3Sep39 2,999/17,784
30Sep40 3,75721,373
30Sep41 3,608/20,552
31Dec41 3,616/20,693

Thus, despite the ‘success’ of the U-Boat force in 1940 (relative to its performance in 1941 and 1942) it had no appreciable effect in reducing the size of the British merchant fleet.

Numbers of ships arriving and losses in North Atlantic convoys inbound to Britain (ships arriving/losses)
1939 700/5 (7.1%)
1940 5,434/133 ((2.5%)
1941 5,923/153 (2.6%)
1942 4,798/80 (1.7%)
1943 5,667/87 (1.5%)
1944 7,410/8 (0.1%)


----------



## Glider (Dec 7, 2007)

The German AA guns and radars would have had to stay in place to defend against the night bombers. So yes they would would have had to increase during the war as time progressed.
As the war progressed the ability of the British to bomb smaller targets also improved. They didn't but thats one of those decisions that would have had to be made.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 7, 2007)

Udet said:


> Really? Not that i really need to present any evidence for it is all out there by the tons for you to grab it.
> 
> In reality, i do not really care too much if my participation within the thread has taken place in the form of "opinion".
> 
> ...



Stopping night bombing seems intrinsically easier because no real night escort existed to sweep German night fighters - RAF depended on spreading the LW thin, chaff and deception. USAAF was a Blugeon - here is all of me - stop me if you can... and the Germans came close until the Mustang in a single stoke made the Reich's T/E night fighters obsolete in daylight ops, then systematically dismantled the day s/e fighters until the 262 arrived - way too late and too few to matter.

One of the greatest unheralded contributions to the RAF by 8th FC is sytematic destruction of specially equipped and trained night fighters all over Germany - in the air and on the ground... from February 1944 through the end of the war. As an example, when the 355th made a deep penetration fighter sweep on April 5, 1944 (in snowstorms all around Munich) they destroyed 51 and damaged 80+ - mostly twin engine D 217s, Me 110s, Ju 88s. You can argue the numbers but on the night of April 6 the resistance to RAF in the SE would have been far less.

I tend to agree all of Udets points even if the outcome is unknowable. I for one am glad the past is what it was.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 8, 2007)

Ok just to clear things up a bit. Bill's original question was IF the USA was completely neutral, could the British survive. (and presumably prevent the USSR from falling) I am suggesting that they could, if they made adjustments to the war strategy to reflect the lack of US help. The scenario assumes that Hitler and Tojo are still directing the Axis war strategy, with their strategy unchanged except for the US absence. So that Hitler invades the Balkans in April 6 1941 and Russia on June 22 (So Japan does not enter the war in Dec 1941, as they did so only because negotiations failed in July - Oct 1941) 

The biggest problem of course is the shipping lost to U-boats. Glider already mentioned the first key element, using long range aircraft to cover the "Iceland Gap" This, together with the cancelling of the Murmansk convoys, would more than compensate for the loss of the 50 US destroyers. The second part I wrote is the reduction of the # of convoy routes, and the use of rail to move supplies to Russia Egypt. 




Udet said:


> Really? Not that i really need to present any evidence for it is all out there by the tons for you to grab it.
> 
> In reality, i do not really care too much if my participation within the thread has taken place in the form of "opinion".
> 
> ...



The British had enough troops to do "Torch" alone, American participation was needed mainly for political reasons, as they had been waiting for almost a year to enter combat. The US had 6 divisions in "Torch", instead the British could have used the 4 Canadian divisions already waiting in England (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th Armoured) as well as the British 18th division (sent in Nov 1941 to Malaysia because of the Japanese threat) as well as the reformed Highland division (after the original was captured in France)



> Go back in this thread and read the summary i made of Royal Navy´s losses prior to the end of 1941, and tell me if this loss rate could have been sustained or made up for if the USA says a big "No" to the war. (Oh i was forgetting, would that summary also be considered "opinion" by your rigorious standards...or evidence?)



No the Summary is "evidence", its historical fact.

*So lets go over your "Summary"* The Germans managed to sink 3 British Battleships/Battlecruisers from 1939 - 1942, The HMS Royal Oak was sunk in 1939, the HMS Barham was sunk by U-boat on Nov 25 1941, and the HMS Hood was sunk by the Bismark in May 1941. The British commisioned 5 new Battleships, King George V in 1940, Duke of York Prince of Wales in 1941, HMS Anson HMS Howe by Aug of 1942. The British also took control of 2 French Battleships (Paris Courbet) in 1940. From Sept 1939 - Dec 1940 the British lost 2 fleet carriers (Courageous Glorious) and comissioned 2 (Illustrious Formidable) The British lost the HMS Ark Royal in Nov 1941, commisioned fleet carriers HMS Victorious in May 1941 HMS Indomitable in Oct 1941, The British lost 3 escort carriers 1941 -1942 (HMS Audacity Dec '41, HMS Eagle Aug '42 HMS Avenger Nov '42 - total of 41 aircraft cap. on the 3 ships) From 1941 - 1942 they commisioned 10 escort carriers, average 15 aircraft each. They also launched fleet carrier HMS Unicorn in Nov 1941, and had 2 more Implacable class building. 

So after accounting for German sinkings, by the end of 1942 the British had *4 more Battleships, 1 more fleet carrier, 6 more escort carriers* than they had in Sept 1939. 

Remember that in this scenario the Japanese are not embargoed by the USA, which was the reason for entering the war in Dec 1941. They ONLY declared war because of the critical oil shortage. Otherwise they would prefer to consolidate their gains in China in 1941. 

So the Repulse, Prince of Wales escort carrier Hermes would not be lost. (Dec '41 - April '42)



Udet said:


> The Germans were on the offensive until Stalingrad? What about Kharkov and Kursk in 1943? (Is this an opinion or evidence?)



The Germans were on a *Strategic retreat* They retreated from Stalingrad, Rostov etc. in early 1943. They tried a counterattack at Kursk, they were routed by the Russians, failed to re-capture Kursk, and proceeded to lose Orel, Kharkov, Zaprozhe, Poltava, Smolensk etc, etc. within the next few months. They didn't GAIN any ground in 1943, only loss retreat. 



Udet said:


> Yes, the soviets were producing large numbers of tanks, planes and artillery...but you are not going to compare the training program of, say, the VVS with that of the USAF are you?
> 
> *No, the Russians stressed quantity over quality*
> 
> No USA in Europe, no 8th, 9th 15th Air Forces...therefore the bulk of the Luftwaffe remains in the East, as opposed to the significant re-deployment of Jagdgeschwadern that took place during the second half of 1943 and 1944, when a significant number of fighter squadrons were brought west to attempt dealing with the USAF operations.



Ok how many fighter squadrons did the LW have in mid 1942, what % were on the western front? ow many squadrons did they have by the end of 1943 and what % were in the west? I don't deny that the Germans will have more air power in the east by the end of 1943, it will slow down the Russian advance but it won't reverse it. That's my opinion of course, you obviously disagree, others will make up their own minds.



> Supplies shipped to Nigeria? I am not sure of the potential of the Royal Navy in this regard...without the USA involved, i do not know if they can take care of the whole business on their own.



Of course they can, they shipped all the supplies *on British ships, with British escort* for the Western Desert armies *completely around the Cape* which took 3 to 4 times more shipping than from Halifax to Nigeria.

The Americans were unprepared for submarine warfare and had their own problems dealing with U-boats (ever heard of the "Happy time"? - 2 million tons lost 1942) their shipping was completely used up moving US troops to Britain the Pacific



Udet said:


> Yes, Canadian production would be much higher but is the Royal Navy powerful enough to ensure sea lines remain "reasonably" safe and open to maintain Great Britain´s ability to continue waging the war? The U.S. will not be in the Atlantic escorting convoys and providing essential aerial cover.



Yes, because the US production for the British army was sent to the UK on BRITISH SHIPS, so if its produced in US or Canada it doesn't make a difference. As posted previously, by shortening the shipping routes using more long range aircraft to patrol the Atlantic, the British could easily compensate for US neutrality. 



> You are suggesting the size of the Flak and Radar systems of the air defence of the Reich had the same size in terms of men and material committed observed for 1942 than it did for late 1943 and throughout 1944?
> 
> Are so sure that with -again and again- 8th, 9th and 15th AF´s absent, the RAF has the potential to pound German industry and civilians with the same intensity consequence of the presence of both RAF and USAF? No Super Free Bird...no USAF and the RAF has to some real nasty choices to make...continue bombing only at night -which would be odd for it would imply a direct benefit to the Germans-, or a combination of both daylight and nocturne raids...can they keep up with producing enough fighters, bombers and ships?



Nobody can be "so sure" what the effect of extra aircraft in the east would be, its only guesswork. As I have said before, the Germans would be able to use more aircraft in the east, but by mid 1943 (when the US bombing really begins to have a sizable effect) it is too late to turn things around in Russia.


----------



## Udet (Dec 8, 2007)

Just a clarification, but i am sure that was only a typing mistake, the HMS Hood was sunk in 1941 -prior to the entrance of the USA into the war as i´ve been stating-.

But what of all those battleships who took severe battle damage duirng the referred period of time that went on "diabled list" for some time?

For some mora data regarding Jagdgeschwadern involved in Defence of the Reich from mid 1943 and throughout 1944 you can check this discussion we had here a long time ago:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/reichsverteidigung-1375.html


----------



## Freebird (Dec 8, 2007)

Udet said:


> Just a clarification, but i am sure that was only a typing mistake, the HMS Hood was sunk in 1941 -prior to the entrance of the USA into the war as i´ve been stating-.
> 
> But what of all those battleships who took severe battle damage duirng the referred period of time that went on "diabled list" for some time?



Yes that was a typo! oops. All the Battleships would have been available at the end of 41' except for Queen Elizabeth Valiant, both badly damaged by the Italian (frogmen) commandos at Alexandria, Egypt Dec '41. (Valiant's repairs took 8 months, Q.E.'s took 18.) If the Japanese are not involved in 1942, the British probably would send Repulse P. of Wales to the Med to replace them. The 2 Carriers damaged (Illustrious Formidable) in the Greek fiasco were both repaired ready by Nov 1941



> For some mora data regarding Jagdgeschwadern involved in Defence of the Reich from mid 1943 and throughout 1944 you can check this discussion we had here a long time ago:
> 
> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/reichsverteidigung-1375.html



Udet thanks for the thread info. I should just clarify this I'm saying that there would be a GOOD chance that the Russians could beat Germany, but how the end game would work out for the British is another matter. 
Assume that if in my hypothesis the British do support Russia enough to tip the balance in the east. The British Victory would depend on Germany coming to an agreement to end the war AFTER they have lost the Eastern war but BEFORE Germany is occupied by Russia.

***edited for clarification*** 

I don't think the US UK have ANY chance of beating Germany if Russia is not in the war. 

(Until one side builds the A-bomb of course!)

And if the UK is not in the war, I don't think Russia can survive past the spring of '42, long before the US can offer any real help. (I don't think they could get any significant amount of supplies to Russia without British help) With Russia knocked out, the US faces Japan Germany, a stalemate is probably the best they could hope for. 

For the British to succeed with USA neutral it assumes that the British recognise in 1940 the limitations that they have with no US help and plan accordingly. The British had a very nasty habit of leaving their Tanks, Artillery equipment all over the place (Dunkirk, Greece, Tobruk, Singapore etc.) It was not so much of a problem with US help. If they don't send ground troops to Greece the whole situation in N. Africa changes.


As I said earlier it makes the most sense to use the rail system instead of having your ships make a 4 or 5 month round-trip to Egypt via the Cape. Can you imagine if the US had to ship material from NY to LA via Panama? Or if Germany had to ship supplies reinforcements to Russia via the Med Black sea?

My theory was that they can stay in the war and supply Russia until the end of '42, but by mid '43 the lack of US help begins to take its toll on the Soviets, especially without the US airforce. I don't think the Germans could turn the war around to beat the Soviets, I think it's more likely that Russia would be able to win (although much more slowly) or there possibley would be a stalemate in Poland/Ukraine, with neither side strong enough to push the other back. 

I think the British putting so many resources into the heavy bombing campaign was a big mistake, especially in 1941. 

Here's another thought, if Germany had better strategic planning, some of my points might be VITAL for the Allies to win, even WITH USA in the war.

*Just out of interest Udet, (or anyone else) what do you think were the 5 or 6 biggest mistakes that Hitler made in planning the war?* 

I figured the Allies would have had much more trouble if:

1. The Germans started the big U-boat build up much earlier.
2. They recruited anti-Soviet troops partisans in the Ukraine 
3. They started Barbarossa at about early April '41 not late June. (maybe send only 10 - 12 divisions to the Balkans)
4. They realized the importance of capturing Suez/Persia put more effort
5. They planned with Japan the attack against Russia, if the Japanese didn't have a treaty with Russia, the Soviets couldn't have used the far-east troops in the winter of '41-'42


----------



## drgondog (Dec 8, 2007)

freebird said:


> Ok just to clear things up a bit. Bill's original question was IF the USA was completely neutral, could the British survive. (and presumably prevent the USSR from falling) I am suggesting that they could, if they made adjustments to the war strategy to reflect the lack of US help. The scenario assumes that Hitler and Tojo are still directing the Axis war strategy, with their strategy unchanged except for the US absence. So that Hitler invades the Balkans in April 6 1941 and Russia on June 22 (So Japan does not enter the war in Dec 1941, as they did so only because negotiations failed in July - Oct 1941)
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Glider (Dec 8, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Freebird - I don't really take any of this discussion as 'improbable' or unfeasible. I think you and Glider and Plan_D have arrived at some good points. But if US stayed entirely Neutral - and btw I mean strictly neutral, neither supplying the Axis or Allies in any way - and Japan does enter the war but bypasses American territory and attacks Great Britain's interests, then the Brit navy is probably defeated in Pacific... as starters.



I think the major divergence of opinion is what happens with Japan. If the USA is strictly neutral, then in my opinion Japan wouldn't attack as they wouldn't have been forced into a corner re oil and scrap metal which the USA embargoed. As a result, the British wouldn't have had any losses. 
Japan may have been party to agreements with Germany and Italy but they didn't declare war on Britain when Germany did, or when the Italians did. *The Japanese only declared war on the British, when they attacked the USA*. There was no reason for Japan to attack Britain, their main preocupation was consolidating their grip on China.
If the worst came to the worst, then as I mentioned in my earlier postings, the British would have had to take the decision to abandon our areas in the far east and concentrate everything on the Atlantic and the Middle east. 



> In my opinion the Middle East is subject to two major potential thrusts at that point and I still question ability of Britain to defeat Germany and Britain had they co-ordinated resources to attack Egypt and Suez.


Its certainly a risk and I wouldn't disagree with anyone who said that had Germany concentrated on the Middle East instead of Russia they sttod an excellent chance of winning the war but they didn't. Germany spared everything it could to support the Desert war whilst attacking Russia. The British would have been able to supply more resources to the Middle East had they not been forced to fight in the Far East.



> It is all speculation, but I haven't seen any convincing scenarios which enables Britain to sustain and defeat any such pressure from both Japan and Germany and Italy in that area. It was a close thing as it was in real life.


Close I agree, but we did hold the Middle East with admittadly the material support of the USA but I believe that we would have won without this help. The Lee Grants probably made the biggest difference. However additional resources would have made at least as big a difference.



> The figure I read in the past that suggested GB needed 1,000,000 tons per day of supplies still nags at me - particularly if Japanese submarine fleet combines with German and Italian... and Japanes Carrier Battle groups show up in Atlantic.


Japans submarines never achieved much and I doubt that they would have made a huge difference. The Carrier groups would have been a killer blow without doubt, but its a long way from Japan to the Atlantic and where are their bases, their support and infrastructure? 
Would the Japanese leave themselves almost totally defenceless? I don't think so.



> So, under my strict neutrality scenario as I describe it above I remain unconvinced that Commonwealth survives. This isn't a wish for America to be loved, nor is it a posture of American superiority.


In brief the British hold out, Canada builds up its production as it did safe from attack. The longer the war goes on the Germans will still be bled white by the Russians and the Commonwealth slowly builds up its strength.



> Back to the thesis. If US does not a.) lift a finger, b.) sell one ford automobile, c.) one drop of oil, d.) ship anything to the East as a Neutral..and agrees a non-agression treaty with Japan.. unfold your thoughts from there? Remember this is a what if that never happened than god - but it represents the ultimate 'what if US stays out"??


If the USA agrees a non agression pact with Japan then, the Japanese wouldn't have attacked the British for the reasons listed earlier, i.e. they had other priorities,


----------



## drgondog (Dec 8, 2007)

If Japan knows we stay neutral (i.e don't fuss about China or invasion of Indo China) - they go for the oil in Indonesia and Britain is a 'blocker'.

We agree that our viewpoints are different and that's ok... but the scenario of Japan NOT attcking Indonesia and scooping up Dutch oil is as unlikely as us staying neutral.. 

Having started with the strictly neutral thesis however, gives Japan that option.

Oil was their number one priority and steel was second in the glorious expansion of the Empire.

I imagine a dialogue between Germany and japan could have been initiated to arrive at mutual interests in Eastern Russia in exchange for a little help in the Indian Ocean/Suez area - and oh, by the way let's split up Africa if you can help in the Atlantic. 

We (Germany) will control from just east of Moscow to North Africa, you (Japan) can have Pacific and Siberia plus what ever you can take and hold in China.

None of these are impossible scenarios of collaboration. No more impossible than US staying out of the war


----------



## Freebird (Dec 8, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Freebird - I don't really take any of this discussion as 'improbable' or unfeasible. I think you and Glider and Plan_D have arrived at some good points. But if US stayed entirely Neutral - and btw I mean strictly neutral, neither supplying the Axis or Allies in any way - and Japan does enter the war but bypasses American territory and attacks Great Britain's interests, then the Brit navy is probably defeated in Pacific... as starters.
> 
> Just a different set of operating conditions but in my question - If US guaranteed to stay Neutral unless America itself is attacked - let's say a miracle occurred and Roosevelt LOST the 1940 election.
> 
> So, under my strict neutrality scenario as I describe it above I remain unconvinced that Commonwealth survives. This isn't a wish for America to be loved, nor is it a posture of American superiority.


 Certainly. Just as my position that the UK could tip the balance against Germany is *NOT* a boast that "We didn't need the USA" but more like "what the hell would we have done if you wern't there"![/B]



> I simply believe that the war was too close to being either 'lost' (in context of defeating Japan by 1946-1947) in 1943, before we had fully ramped up in the US. Even if the Japanese had been lucky enough to catch the Carriers in port and pursued the third wave to take out our sub bases and POL - Oahu and Hawaii would have been toast. It would have taken a long time to regain that foothold in the Pacific.
> 
> We could have done nothing to protect Australia - SW Pacific gone. No Midway, no Guadalcanal, no defeat of Japs in new Guinea.
> 
> ...



Ok I will post some theories on Shipping, Torch, Med, Airwar 1943-44 etc, later today {Sorry this J.O.B. thingy keeps interfering with more interesting stuff LOL!}

Also another point- Suppose as in my hypothesis the British DO support Russia enough to tip the balance in the east. The only way for *anything approaching a British Victory *would depend on Germany coming to an agreement to a truce with Britain AFTER they have lost the Eastern war but BEFORE Germany is occupied by Russia. Very tricky to say the least.
The British might make an offer to moderate, intelligent, German Generals ie (Rommel, Guderian, Manstien) something like this: Arrest the top Nazi's (Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Eichmann etc) for trial, then and ONLY THEN the UK would consider a truce with a new German Government, with the Germans moving back to approx. their 1914 borders. And yes this would be considered a double-cross by Stalin, but I don't know if Russia would continue the war if they got their territory back Britain is no longer fighting + the Japanese are threatening in the East. the only real acceptable outcome for the UK (absent of US involvement) is a stalemate between Germany Russia, total domination of the continent by Russia is almost as bad as by Germany. This would be a continuation of Britain's 19th century "Continental policy" of preventing any one power from dominating all of Europe.


About Japan, Glider is exactly correct, Japan's LAST option was for war with USA in 1942, they wanted to finish China first, at least 12 - 18 months work. I have an excellent book "70 days to Singapore", by Stanley Falk USAF historian. He quotes Japanese sources on the Imperial conference of July 1941 deciding that because of the crippling sanctions, war with US UK was the only option. However, they were prepared to call off the attacks as late as Nov 1941, if agreement could be reached with the Dutch. (who because of US pressure refused to sell oil to Japan)

I find it hard to believe that the US could have a treaty with Japan, considering its interest in the Philippines. A more likely scenario is that the US would simply declare that it would stay out of foreign wars (ie Europe, China etc.) But EVEN IF the US had a treaty with Japan, I don't think they would trust the USA not to change its mind, the Japanese conference decided that they couldn't risk attacking Dutch British territories with the US sitting on Japan's supply line (ie. B-17s etc in Manila) I posted earlier, even in the unlikely event that Japan DID decide to attack Malaya/ Dutch E.I., it would not be until Dec 1942 at the very earliest (remember no pressure for oil) which would be AFTER the Nov 1942 congress elections. They couldn't risk an anti-Japanese faction taking control reversing policy.

The one *BIG* consequence of this policy however is that say by 1944 the Japanese would, or be well on the way defeating China, which would bring them into later conflict with Russia. (Assuming that Russia is on its way to defeating Germany.)

Just to clarify, I'm assuming that you mean we "Alter history" in 1940, (say the isolationists win a vote in congress.) So that any aircraft already ordered paid for by Britain or France *before the war* would be delivered, (ie DB-7s etc) but if you postulate total neutrality then no further sales would be allowed after war breaks out. (ie they cancel the "Cash carry policy). I don't think they could take payment and not deliver the goods already ordered, could they? We'll sue! LOL  I don't think we can go back any farther than 1940, because otherwise we would change the outcome of the BoF or BoB. Assume that the BoF BoB takes place as historical, in 1940. The British do not get the 50 destroyers or "Roosevelt's care package" of July 1940. (guns, ammo etc.) Is that about what you mean?


----------



## Glider (Dec 8, 2007)

drgondog said:


> If Japan knows we stay neutral (i.e don't fuss about China or invasion of Indo China) - they go for the oil in Indonesia and Britain is a 'blocker'.
> 
> We agree that our viewpoints are different and that's ok... but the scenario of Japan NOT attcking Indonesia and scooping up Dutch oil is as unlikely as us staying neutral..
> 
> ...



I believe tht the key decision/event is 'Does the USA embago oil'? 
If they do, then there is no non agression pact and Japan attacks.
If they don't, then Japan doesn't need to attack the British/Dutch and the British concentrate on the Middle East/Atlantic.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 8, 2007)

freebird said:


> Also another point- Suppose as in my hypothesis the British DO support Russia enough to tip the balance in the east. The only way for *anything approaching a British Victory *would depend on Germany coming to an agreement to a truce with Britain AFTER they have lost the Eastern war but BEFORE Germany is occupied by Russia. Very tricky to say the least.
> The British might make an offer to moderate, intelligent, German Generals ie (Rommel, Guderian, Manstien) something like this: Arrest the top Nazi's (Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Eichmann etc) for trial, then and ONLY THEN the UK would consider a truce with a new German Government, with the Germans moving back to approx. their 1914 borders. And yes this would be considered a double-cross by Stalin, but I don't know if Russia would continue the war if they got their territory back Britain is no longer fighting + the Japanese are threatening in the East. the only real acceptable outcome for the UK (absent of US involvement) is a stalemate between Germany Russia, total domination of the continent by Russia is almost as bad as by Germany. This would be a continuation of Britain's 19th century "Continental policy" of preventing any one power from dominating all of Europe.
> 
> *An interesting insight and I agree the political 'balance of power' doctrine for all Euro leaders would lead to these type considerations*
> ...



I would say that any aircraft shipped before innauguration in January 21, 1941would be shipped and that new Prez stops all future shipments as a belligerent act similar to WWI that ultimately brought us into a 'european war'.

In that context I think Britain does get the 50 destroyers, but none of the Mustangs, Liberators, P-40s, Bostons, Grant tanks (as sorry as they were) etc that flowed out in early 1941 through Pearl Harbor.

I do imagine that our build up would continue at th same furious pace bcause we may have had even some common sense, but you never know - Clinton for example stopped the Reagan/Bush build up and cut our forcs by 50%.

It has been intresting to speculate on the alternate universes.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 8, 2007)

Glider said:


> I think the major divergence of opinion is what happens with Japan. If the USA is strictly neutral, then in my opinion Japan wouldn't attack as they wouldn't have been forced into a corner re oil and scrap metal which the USA embargoed. As a result, the British wouldn't have had any losses.
> Japan may have been party to agreements with Germany and Italy but they didn't declare war on Britain when Germany did, or when the Italians did. *The Japanese only declared war on the British, when they attacked the USA*. There was no reason for Japan to attack Britain, their main preocupation was consolidating their grip on China.
> If the worst came to the worst, then as I mentioned in my earlier postings, the British would have had to take the decision to abandon our areas in the far east and concentrate everything on the Atlantic and the Middle east.
> 
> ...



Glider is correct, Japan's first priorities in '41 '42 are on the mainland. l think there is a danger for UK in Malaya, but I think only from mid 1943 or later. (absent oil embargo) The Japanese objectives were 1.) China 2.) Russian Far East 3.) S. China Sea island groups (Philippines, Borneo etc.)

You are correct about the danger to the Soviet Far East though, more Japanese troops in Manchuria would prevent the Soviets from bringing troops to the west. One of the major key points for the British is the (mis) handling of the Med theatre, Spring 1941. It was a very close decision, whether to send troops to Greece, I would hope that the lack of vehicles tanks from the US would make the UK cancel the thought of sending the troops to Greece, as the Greeks didn't really even want the UK troops. (UK lost 150+ tanks 8,000 vehicles in Greece!) If the UK makes the correct choice, they keep up the pressure in Libya, they could clean it up by the end of 1941. (Rommel arrives in Mar '41, the loss of UK troops to Greece allows him to push them back) As to your question about re-inforcing Rommel, the Axis had a hard time in the 2nd half of '41, because of Malta's interference with Italian convoys. Not much German air power was available to attack Malta, as it mostly went east for Barbarossa. This is part of the reason that Auchinleck was able to force Rommel to retreat at "Crusader" (Nov 41) because Rommel's fuel supply was short after so many Italian tankers were hit during the summer. It's only in the beginning of '42 that Hitler sends the LW to neutralize Malta, then the Africa Korps begins to push back against the British 

The British should however send the NZ division to Crete, with 30-40 tanks + more guns aircraft they can beat off the German parachute attack. With Crete in British control, Hitler would be forced to pull perhaps 4 - 6 divisions from Barbarossa, to guard against the British attempting a landing in Greece. (Hitler was always paranoid about Greece Norway) Assuming that the British can send a few hundred more aircraft to Russia in the fall 1941, along with the missing 4 - 6 divisions, this should come close to neutralizing the threat from Japan.

Another thing to consider is that if the USA and Britain were not planning joint strategy, the situation at Singapore would change as well. It was the British plan to hold Singapore as a base for future operations with the US against Japan. With the US neutral, as Glider said, the UK might not sacrifice the Eastern fleet to try to save Singapore. (Malaya's value as a source for rubber is not as important, because by this time the UK/Allies contol the Belgian supply in the Congo) And remember that even if the US treaty with Japan is *written in Blood* they still can't count on it holding up after Nov 1942.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 9, 2007)

drgondog said:


> I would say that any aircraft shipped before innauguration in January 21, 1941would be shipped and that new Prez stops all future shipments as a belligerent act similar to WWI that ultimately brought us into a 'european war'.
> 
> In that context I think Britain does get the 50 destroyers, but none of the *Mustangs,* Liberators, P-40s, Bostons, Grant tanks (as sorry as they were) etc that flowed out in early 1941 through Pearl Harbor.
> 
> ...



Canada actually had an aircraft company that was a licencee of North American. (making "Texan" trainers, called "Harvard" in Canada) 

Assuming that an ardently "isolationist" President congress are elected in 1940, the British would have to tell Kindelburger that he will need to produce the Mustang in Canada, or licence it there to be built. Since Kindelburger had approached the British in early 1940 because he needed business for his company, I bet he would't be too adverse to opening a plant in Canada, especially since they had put all of that effort into the Mustang development. ( keeps all of his employees working) The Mustang prototype first flew in Oct 1940 as I understand. If he wants to make Mitchell's in Canada too that would be just fine! 

And we promise there will be no visa hassles at the border LOL!  
(Hey this Green card looks fake to me, eh Chico?)


----------



## drgondog (Dec 9, 2007)

freebird said:


> Canada actually had an aircraft company that was a licencee of North American. (making "Texan" trainers, called "Harvard" in Canada)
> 
> Assuming that an ardently "isolationist" President congress are elected in 1940, the British would have to tell Kindelburger that he will need to produce the Mustang in Canada, or licence it there to be built. Since Kindelburger had approached the British in early 1940 because he needed business for his company, I bet he would't be too adverse to opening a plant in Canada, especially since they had put all of that effort into the Mustang development. ( keeps all of his employees working) The Mustang prototype first flew in Oct 1940 as I understand. If he wants to make Mitchell's in Canada too that would be just fine!
> 
> ...



LOL - just say I am glad this reality is not part of my universe..

I DO recall the Kaiser tried to con Mexico into attacking US in WWI in exchange for Texas, California and Border States... so maybe Green Card check is still on?


----------



## Freebird (Dec 9, 2007)

Anyways Bill, I'll continue with my theory on the 12 ideas.

*#6. Commonwealth production would have to be increased to make up for U.S. neutrality*

Canadian, Australian, S. African New Zealand all had manufacturing capacity that was not used in the war, as the huge US production supplied enough for all of the Allies. Examples such as the Sentinal tank Wirraway from Australia, Ram Grizzly tank in Canada are examples of Commonwealth projects that were started but ultimately not needed because of the huge US manufacturing capabilities 


About the Mustang....
Yes I assume that no parts, tools etc. could be exported from the USA, but I don't think he could prevent US citizens from leaving the country? Basically a few weeks after North American demonstrates the Mustang, King's evil twin (LOL!) wins the election, {Stimson or Sen. Nye would also fit the bill!} and both the British Kindelburger realize their deal is about to be torpedoed, as presumably the pres elect is promising to ban weapon sales etc. Kindelburger would probably prefer to produce the fighter at a subsidiary plant in Canada, rather than lose the business, as he didn't know at this point if the USAAF would buy any of his aircraft, either the Mustang or Mitchell. He would also realize that if he didn't produce it for the British, their technical experts who had evaluated the designs prototypes would go back to London design very similar aircraft with similar features. (copyright infringment? Sue me! LOL!) Even if he couldn't take any tools or parts, his staff technical plans could escape to Canada before I-day. (Inauguration)  

** {We could make this into a movie, Kindelburger staff loading up their Studebaker with blueprints fleeing across the 49th parallel to save the free world! LOL. Keystone Kops pursuing of course!}**

The Montreal plant that was already making Texans (Harvards) would be re-tooled to make the new fighter, no tools or parts from USA.

Regardless, unless Kindelburger staff are locked up (4th amendment??  ) the canadian subsidiary could produce the aircraft. If all else fails, they would be able to produce the Spit V etc instead. Commonwealth production would have to fill the lend-lease gap to Russia if the US is neutral, for vehicles, tanks, ammunition, supplies etc. The Canadian plants could also tool up to produce engines as well, I believe the only reason they didn't produce many is because of the huge US capacity. 

Actually quite a few US companies had plants in Canada prior to 1941, Boeing had a plant in Vancouver, Fairchild had a plant in Montreal, GM Ford as well, leading to some interesting problems, as there was a huge flow between the 2 countries, and still is today.



> Canada had become one of the world's leading automobile manufacturers in the 1920s, owing to the presence of branch-plants of American automakers in Ontario. In 1938, *Canada's automotive industry ranked fourth in the world in the output of passenger car and trucks, even though a large part of its productive capacity remained idle because of the Depression. * During the war, this industry was put to good use, building all manner of war materiel, aircraft vehicles, in fact Canada became the *second largest* (next to the United States) producer of wheeled vehicles during the war. * Canada's output of nearly 800,000 trucks, for instance, exceeded the combined total truck production of Germany, Italy, and Japan.* Rivals Ford Canada and General Motors of Canada pooled their engineering design teams to produce a standardised vehicle amenable to mass production, the Canadian Military Pattern (CMP) truck, which served throughout the British Commonwealth. Approximately half of the British Army's transport requirements were supplied from Canadian manufacturers. The British Official History referred to these vehicles as Canada's most important contribution to Allied victory.
> 
> In addition, Canada produced its own medium tank, the Ram tank. Approximately 16,000 aircraft, including Hurricane fighters, Avro Lancaster and De Havilland Mosquito bombers, were built in Canada. In addition, by the end of 1944, Canadian shipyards had launched naval ships, such as destroyers, frigates, corvettes, and some 345 merchant vessels. But perhaps no Canadian contribution to the Allied war effort was so vital as that made by the metals industries: half of Allied aluminium and ninety percent of Allied nickel was supplied by Canadian sources during the war.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 9, 2007)

Freebird you make it sound so easy Canada built aircraft but the quality of the aircraft we built up until the middle of 42 was a far lower standard then the norm .We were learning how to build aircraft and it was a very steep learning curve .


----------



## Freebird (Dec 9, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Freebird you make it sound so easy Canada built aircraft but the quality of the aircraft we built up until the middle of 42 was a far lower standard then the norm .We were learning how to build aircraft and it was a very steep learning curve .



I was actually thinking that Britain would supply almost all of the aircraft until '42 anyways, Canada's main contribution would be trucks tanks, in Bill's scenario if the US went completely neutral after BoB (late 1940) it would take 12 - 18 months for Canada get up to speed making new aircraft. What was the problem with Canadian aircraft manufacturing? Was the problem with all Canadian aircraft, ie. Mossie, Hurricane, Lanc, Hampden, Blenheim (Bolingbroke), or just certain types?


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 9, 2007)

Before some of you jump on the Commonwealth industrial production bandwagon, consider this:

1) Only Canada had the required factories and mills in place. And even then, it was a fraction the size of the UK.

2) Australia and S Africa for all practical purposes did not have the factories and industrial base on hand. Remember that building an aircrfat not only includes the people that put the plane together, but hundred, thousands more building the various sub assemblies. Sure you have the skilled manpower and technical base in order to do it?

3) All the commonwealth countries were feeling the manpower "pinch" in 1942. So what are your priorities going to be? Build the industrial and manufacturing base.... or build up your armies and navies? 

4) Even though Canada's contributions were impressive, it was still a FAR DISTANT fraction of the US figures.

5) The war is going to be won or lost withing a reasonable amount of time. No one is going to wait untill you have your production capabilities in place.

Could the Commonwealth eventually meet the industrial needs for the war? Yes. By the time the Russians or Germans win the war? NOPE!


----------



## Udet (Dec 10, 2007)

Again and again the problem i see here with several opinions issued is that they seem to believe World War Two would have lasted on and on, far beyond the extremely long ~6 years it actually did.

As if the world of the 1930s/40s was like that of the ancient world, when combatant Cty-States and/or Empires would remain in a state-of-war for decades.

Also as i stated before in here, not even the large USSR ruled by the thugs it had in office could go on with a WW2 type of war for any much longer...Tyrants can enjoy nearly unlimited non-contested power within the borders of the territory under their boots...still and no matter how clever -and lucky- the Tyrant might be, they too might meet harsh ends.

I´m in no way claiming to have true insight into the economic, cultural and political consequences of losing ~13% of your entire population in a matter of nearly 4 years, as the Soviets did during the war, not to mention the extra-millions murdered directly or indirectly by Smiley Dzhugashvili´s policies in the 1930s; but you bet it is something that really slams the people of one nation.

No. You do not even want to think of the scenario where the U.S.A. remains neutral for good.

Canada? How much time do you think it would have taken Canada to commence producing huge quantities of fighters, bombers and other weapons, not to mention the critical ~2,700 Liberty Ships (made in the USA) in order to keep Great Britain going? *ANSWER:* I could not tell the precise time it would take them -provided they could-, but something is 100% very sure: they would never do it in the time the U.S.A. did when it entered the war. Never. Ever.

Big Mouth Churchill´s bully attitude in his so-called "mission" to "save" the world from the "most terrible tyranny ever" kept going on for the very simple reason the USA became an official combatant in December 1941.

If the people of Great Britain had had an origin and history nearly equal -or similar- to that of the people of the USSR, with a Stalin Type of regime in office, then the aid of the U.S.A. is certainly not too necessary, for they would indeed keep fighting with complete disregard of losses "until the end"...such would be the sole scenario where i could see the UK and USSR beating Germany, and it would be just that, a possibility; never certain. The problem being, Great Britain is way different to the Soviet Union.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Dec 11, 2007)

That is some rant Udet.  That is some unhealthy hatred you have for the Soviets and British. 

Over 50% of American Lend-lease arrived in the USSR after mid 1944. The first protocol period from 1 October 1941 to 30 June 1942 (signed 1 October 1941)

Early L-L from the USA did not have that much effect on the Soviet's ability to defend their country from the invading barbarous hordes of Nazi Germany. (nice name given, Barbarossa, for the invasion of the USSR)

Interesting is the ranking of military equipment production of the USSR and Nazi Germany.
Military production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the mentally disturbed Tyrant, Adolf Schicklgruber, had met a harsh end the war would most likely have had a different ending.


----------



## Glider (Dec 11, 2007)

Udet said:


> Big Mouth Churchill´s bully attitude in his so-called "mission" to "save" the world from the "most terrible tyranny ever" .


I always thought we were a democracy, must have missed something along the way.



> The problem being, Great Britain is way different to the Soviet Union.


A problem I admit, I can live with.


----------



## Rich46yo (Dec 11, 2007)

Hello to all. My opinion is that somehow, and someway, the worst thing that would have happened on the Eastern front would be that Stalin and Hitler would have negotiated an end to the war had not Stalin the luxury of having America in it.

And its possible Germany or Russia would have eventually won. Neither of which would be to good a thing for Europeans.

Im afraid as far as a stable Democratic Europe is concerned America was the linchpin.

I dont even think the Brits could have held out without American re-supply from sea.

Just study the amounts of Industrial output by American Industry during the war. The numbers are staggering.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2007)

Udet said:


> the world from the "most terrible tyranny ever" kept



Do you believe that it was not one of the "most terrible tyranny ever"?


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 11, 2007)

Glider said:


> A problem I admit, I can live with.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 11, 2007)

drgondog said:


> I am inclined to believe that Britain a.) could not have increased shipping tonnage at expense of anti-sub, or b.) could not have sustained Britain in context of fuel and food through 1943 - *absent some amazingly efficient breakthroughs in detection and sub sinking technologies*.



Remember that Sonar, Centimetric Radar, Hedgehog, Leigh Light, Huff-Duff {High frequency direction finding} A/S measures were all developed by the British and later given to the USA


drgondog said:


> I don't know how important the 50 Lend Lease destroyers were to Britain, but I do know how important our ship building and steady stream of supplies were to marginally overcome the Atlantic threat in 1943 - after 18 months of our own dedication. I still do not know how Britain would have kept supply chain going from Canada or Africa/Middle East



Yes, if they take measures suggested by Glider I, (and initially rejected by Adm. King Air Marshal Harris) namely using protected convoys long range aircraft. Also the reduction of the # of convoy miles would also play a huge part.



drgondog said:


> Does US abstinance from U-Boat campaign significantly weaken Britain's ability to keep sea lanes open I know we made no significant difference in 1940-1942 except for replacement of hulls and crews and war material, and introduction of long range patrols and Finally USN support beyond Greenland and Iceland. Canada and GB doing heavy lifting on escort in that time..
> 
> *The UK and Canada had enough aircraft to protect the sea lanes, the problem was that Bomber command refused to release them.*
> 
> ...



About shipping the U-boat problem. 
First, Bill your figure of 1 million tons a day for British imports is not correct, it is a bare minimum of a half million tons per month, or a normal *1 million tons per month for the British population*. The average man needs 400 pounds per year of food. Britain needed to import 75% of its food in WWII, and had a total population of about 46 million. 
46,000,000 x 300 lb = 13,800,000,000 lb or 6,900,000 tons, or 0.575 million tons per month of food. (the other 0.425 millon tons/month would mostly be gasoline for private use etc.) 

The total tonnage of *British controlled shipping in 1939 was 17.7 million tons, in Dec 1941 was 20.8 million tons.* It takes 8 - 10 days for a freighter to make the 2,600 mile trip from Liverpool to Montreal. In the 1940's Canada exported an average of 14 million tons of grain per year, plus lesser amounts of meat, fish, vegetables etc, easily more than enough to supply the UK. Prior to the was a large % of our exports went to (now occupied) Europe. In fact oversupply was a huge problem for the Commonwealth in WWII, as cargo ships were diverted to carry war supplies, food stockpiles in Canada Australia overflowed beyond storehouse capacity. 

The British had alredy "gained the upper hand" in the Battle of the Atlantic *by the end of 1941, "shipping losses were high, but manegable" *In 1941 the British lost 2.2 million tons and built 1.2 million, but were still had 3 million tons more than when they started the war. {quote from "Battle Fleet"} Battle of Atlantic 1940 1941 WW2

The problems came in 1942, mainly as the result of the policies of Adm. King, refusing to organize convoys or blackouts. In all of 1942 the British lost 4 million tons, the US 2.1 million tons, compromising 1,150 ships. In the first *6 months* of 1942 *"Almost 500 ships were lost in US waters to just a handful of U-boats"* and this was *mostly within sight of the US or Caribbean coast!!!* 
BBC - History - The Battle of the Atlantic
{Quote from BBC.co.uk}
This area was under the control of the USA, British ships were loading supplies at the Atlantic ports, and the US was responsible for protection from U-boats. 

Of all the 1942 British shipping losses, *more than 65%* were lost on the US seaboard, or the Murmansk convoys, *which I would eliminate.*

(read earlier posts about the Nigeria-Egypt-Russia rail route)

So in conclusion, *in 1942 the UK/Commonwealth built 1.8 million tons of shipping in their yards,* without counting a single Liberty ship. At the same time, even with over 240 U-boats operational, {because of the increasing effect of British A/S technology} *the Germans were only able to sink less than 1.3 million tons of UK/Commonwealth shipping in British controlled waters or on British convoy routes* {other than in US controlled waters, or on Murmansk convoys} 



> The Battle of the Atlantic was won by the Allies by the Allies by the summer of 1943, in the space of about two months, but there was no single reason for this, it was a combination of technology tactics. The disastrous convoy battles of October 1940 forced a change in British tactics. The most important of these was the introduction of permanent escort groups to improve the co-ordination and effectiveness of ships and men in battle. *British efforts were helped by a gradual increase in the number of escort vessels available as the old ex-American destroyers and the new British- and Canadian-built Flower class corvettes were now coming into service in numbers.* Many of these ships became part of the huge expansion of the Royal Canadian Navy.



British Canadian built corvettes formed the bulk of the escorting warships that fought the battle of the atlantic.
{Quote from Uboat.net} uboat.net - Allied Warships - Flower class Corvettes



> The mid-Atlantic gap that had been unreachable by aircraft was closed by long-range aircraft. By spring 1943 the British had developed an effective sea-scanning centimetric radar small enough to be carried on patrol aircraft armed with airborne depth charges. Centimetric radar greatly improved detection and nullified the German Metox radar warning equipment. Further protection was provided by the introduction of escort aircraft carriers, they provided the much needed air cover and patrols all the way across the Atlantic.
> 
> _The British introduced the first escort Carrier "HMS Audacity" in June of 1941, and proved to be very effective, leading to the building of 100's more._
> 
> ...


----------



## Udet (Dec 11, 2007)

Glider try reading this:

WorldNetDaily: Was World War II worth it?


----------



## Freebird (Dec 11, 2007)

Continued...



> The U.S., having no direct experience of modern naval war on its own shores, did not employ convoys or coastal black-outs. The U.S. Commander-in-Chief of the Atlantic Fleet, Admiral Ernest King, who hated the British, initially rejected these when suggested by the Royal Navy. King has been criticized for this decision, but his defenders argue that the United States destroyer fleet was limited, and King claimed that it was far more important that the destroyers protect Allied troop transports than shipping. This does not explain the refusal to require coastal black-outs, or to respond to any advice the Royal Navy provided. Merchant ships sailing in U.S. waters were left exposed and suffered greatly. *Britain eventually had to build coastal escorts and provide them for free to the U.S.* in a "reverse Lend Lease", since King was unwilling (or unable) to make any provision himself.
> 
> In May, Admiral King finally scraped together enough ships to institute a convoy system. This quickly led to the loss of seven U-boats. But the U.S. did not have enough ships to cover all the holes, and the U-boats continued to operate freely during the Battle of the Caribbean and throughout the Gulf of Mexico where they *effectively closed several U.S. ports until July, when the British-loaned escorts began arriving.* The institution of an interlocking convoy system on the American coast and in the Caribbean Sea in mid-1942 resulted in an immediate drop in attacks in those areas.



During wartime the British needed about 3 million tons (oil) tanker capacity going to Britain to keep the war effort going. (this assumes that oil is brought from the Persian gulf, Venezuela or Mexico) The ships would take an average of 2 months per trip, meaning that the British would use 1.25 million tons per month or 15 million tons/year
War usage tons per month:
15 Battleships/6 aircraft Carriers 70,000
15 Heavy/50 light Cruisers 120,000 
140 destroyers 175,000
500 FF, CVE, aux. craft etc 200,000
1,400 subs, Corvettes, sml craft 220,000
Aircraft 240,000
Vehicles 25,000
Other (includes domestic) 200,000

For example, A "Kent" heavy cruiser would use 2,200 tons/month, a destroyer 1,250 tons, "Dido" class light cruiser would use about 1,700 tons/month, each of them cruising about 8,000 miles/month at avr. 14 knots
***note: revised on 12/15, includes only ships based in UK/Iceland***

Cruiser list "bunkerage" from Cruiser Operations
World War 2 Cruisers


----------



## Glider (Dec 11, 2007)

Udet said:


> Glider try reading this:
> 
> WorldNetDaily: Was World War II worth it?



Try imagining what would have happened if Churchill hadn't been around. 

Large numbers of senior members of Parliment and business were for an agreement with Germany. Its by no means certain that war would have been declared and Germany could have concentrated on Russia and life would be very different.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Dec 11, 2007)

Bill, those 50 destroyers from the USA were floating pieces of junk.

_They were uncomfortable and wet, working badly in a seaway. Their hull lines were rather narrow and 'herring-gutted' which gave them a vicious roll. The officers didn't like the way they handled either, since they had been built with propellors that turned the same way (2-screw ships normally have the shafts turning in opposite directions as the direction of rotation has effects on the rudder and the whole ship when manoeuvring, especially when coming alongside), so these were as awkward to handle as single-screw ships. Their turning circle was enormous, as big as most Royal Navy battleships, making them difficult to use in a submarine hunt which demanded tight maneouvers, compounded by unreliable "chain and cog" steering gear laid across the main deck. They also had fully-enclosed bridges which caused problems with reflections in the glass at night._


----------



## drgondog (Dec 11, 2007)

AL Schlageter said:


> Bill, those 50 destroyers from the USA were floating pieces of junk.
> 
> _They were uncomfortable and wet, working badly in a seaway. Their hull lines were rather narrow and 'herring-gutted' which gave them a vicious roll. The officers didn't like the way they handled either, since they had been built with propellors that turned the same way (2-screw ships normally have the shafts turning in opposite directions as the direction of rotation has effects on the rudder and the whole ship when manoeuvring, especially when coming alongside), so these were as awkward to handle as single-screw ships. Their turning circle was enormous, as big as most Royal Navy battleships, making them difficult to use in a submarine hunt which demanded tight maneouvers, compounded by unreliable "chain and cog" steering gear laid across the main deck. They also had fully-enclosed bridges which caused problems with reflections in the glass at night._



Al, I know. 

IIRC it took RN more than a year to refit them and make some semblance of a fighting ships.. but used they were.

I'm not really hung up on the value one way or another, just an illustration of an IMPORTANT political commitment leading to entire Lend Lease future which was important. 

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Marcel (Dec 11, 2007)

Glider said:


> Try imagining what would have happened if Churchill hadn't been around.
> 
> Large numbers of senior members of Parliment and business were for an agreement with Germany. Its by no means certain that war would have been declared and Germany could have concentrated on Russia and life would be very different.



Yep, we would all be saying "Heil Hitler" right now


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 11, 2007)

AL Schlageter said:


> Bill, those 50 destroyers from the USA were floating pieces of junk.
> 
> _They were uncomfortable and wet, working badly in a seaway. Their hull lines were rather narrow and 'herring-gutted' which gave them a vicious roll. The officers didn't like the way they handled either, since they had been built with propellors that turned the same way (2-screw ships normally have the shafts turning in opposite directions as the direction of rotation has effects on the rudder and the whole ship when manoeuvring, especially when coming alongside), so these were as awkward to handle as single-screw ships. Their turning circle was enormous, as big as most Royal Navy battleships, making them difficult to use in a submarine hunt which demanded tight maneouvers, compounded by unreliable "chain and cog" steering gear laid across the main deck. They also had fully-enclosed bridges which caused problems with reflections in the glass at night._



But the U-Boat skippers didnt know that. All they knew was some destroyer was near by with depth charges ready to drop on them.

Keeping a u-boat submerged and unable to attack is almost as good as damaging it.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 11, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> But the U-Boat skippers didnt know that. All they knew was some destroyer was near by with depth charges erady to drop on them.
> 
> Keeping a u-boat submerged and unable to attack is almost as good as damaging it.



Agreed. They weren't worthless or RN would not have bothered refitting them.

I am still doubtful that RN could a.) keep shipping lanes open (enough to sustain war effort) to/from Britain or b.) defeated Japanese Navy in Indian Ocean given strict neutrality by US


----------



## plan_D (Dec 12, 2007)

Excellent posts, Freebird. You've just thrown the idea of Britain being unable to fight the U-boats on its own out of the window. I'm sorry but anyone elses argument against Freebirds postings on the British anti-submarine war have to be abandoned...they really do.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 12, 2007)

plan_D said:


> Excellent posts, Freebird. You've just thrown the idea of Britain being unable to fight the U-boats on its own out of the window. I'm sorry but anyone elses argument against Freebirds postings on the British anti-submarine war have to be abandoned...they really do.



No one doubts the technical and scientific ability of the RN to combat the U-Boat threat. The question is if the RN had enough assetts to protect all of the convoys.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 12, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> No one doubts the technical and scientific ability of the RN to combat the U-Boat threat. The question is if the RN had enough assetts to protect all of the convoys.



I agree Syscom. It is one thing to assert that RN MIGHT be able to prevail, quite a different thing to prove it. Particularly if RN has to contend with combined fleets of Japan (however limited in Atlantic) plus Italy plus Germany.

Having said that it is silly to say anyone has to Prove anything - this has been logic based speculation at best.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 12, 2007)

drgondog said:


> I agree Syscom. It is one thing to assert that RN MIGHT be able to prevail, quite a different thing to prove it. Particularly if RN has to contend with combined fleets of Japan (however limited in Atlantic) plus Italy plus Germany.
> 
> Having said that it is silly to say anyone has to Prove anything - this has been logic based speculation at best.




75% of what we talk about here is pure speculation at best. Syscom perhaps 85% speculation. This whole thread idea is pure speculation at best. Syscom (or you) cannot prove that USA saved Europe and PlanD cannot prove that Commonwealth with Russia could of won by themselves.

It's all speculation at best.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 12, 2007)

I am not saying either side is right but here are some Canadian facts:

During the Second World War, Canadian industries manufactured war materials and other supplies for Canada, the United States, Britain, and other Allied countries. The total value of Canadian war production was almost $10 billion - approximately $100 billion in today’s dollars.

The Canadian contribution began early and made a crucial difference to the winning of the war. For a nation of 11 million people it was an incredible accomplishment.

Canadian industrial production during the Second World war.

* 11 billion dollars of munitions
* 1.7 million small arms
* 43,000 heavy guns
* 16,000 aircraft
* 2 million tonnes of explosives
* 815,000 military vehicles, 50,000 tanks and armoured gun carriers
* 9,000 boats and ships
*
Anti-tank and field artillery
*
Naval guns
*
Small arms and automatic weapons
*
Radar sets and Electronics
*
Synthetic rubber
*
Uranium for the ’Manhattan Project’

Canada was faced with the challenge of creating - practically from scratch - a strong industrial base to produce weapons and war materials for the war effort. Canadian industry and the workforce of our country stepped up with an amazing response to this situation and helped contribute to the Allied victory in the war.

* It established C. D. Howe’s Department of Munitions and Supply and the Wartime Industries Control Board, both in the spring of 1940, and applied tough wage and price controls in 1941.
* It lent money to Britain interest-free, gave it a gift of war supplies in January 1942 and then donated surplus production to Canada’s allies through the Canadian Mutual Aid Board.

Canadian war factories were safe from bombing. Canada became an arsenal, and was Britain’s chief overseas supplier of war materiel.

Canada did not accept American Lend-Lease aid. Actually Canada ran its own lend-lease program for its allies called "Mutual Aid", supplying its allies with four billion dollars worth of war materiel. A further credit of a billion dollars was given to Britain.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 12, 2007)

By 1945 Canada’s war production was fourth among the Allied nations, less only than that of the United States, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom. Only some 30% of this was needed for Canada’s armed forces: the remainder went overseas.

Another of the most important was the mass production of 815,729 military vehicles, including 45,710 armoured vehicles. Canadian-made vehicles were crucial in equipping the British Eighth Army in North Africa and Italy. Canada also produced rifles, submachine guns, light machine guns, antitank guns and antiaircraft guns, as well as the multipurpose 25-pounder artillery piece.

* Britain had entered the war with 80,000 military vehicles of all types; however, 75,000 of these British vehicles were left behind in the evacuation at Dunkirk in 1940. Virtually defenceless on the ground, Britain turned to Canada - and particularly the Canadian auto industry - to replace what had been lost. Canada not only replaced these losses, it did much more.
* Canadian industry produced over 800,000 military transport vehicles, 50,000 tanks, 40,000 field, naval, and anti-aircraft guns, and 1,700,000 small arms.
* Of the 800,000 military vehicles of all types built in Canada, 168,000 were issued to Canadian forces. Thirty-eight percent of the total Canadian production went to the British. The remainder of the vehicles went to the other Allies. This meant that the Canadian Army ’in the field’ had a ratio of one vehicle for every three soldiers, making it the most mechanized field force in the war.
* The Bombardier company of Valcourt, Quebec, built over 150 military snowmobiles. General Motors developed a frame for another snowmobile, of which 300 were built.
* Canadian Pacific Railway constructed 788 Valentine tanks in its Angus shop in Montreal; its engine was built by General Motors. 5,200 tanks had been built at C.P. Angus and Montreal Locomotive Company shops by the end of the war.
* 2,150 twenty-five pounder "Sexton" self-propelled guns were built by Montreal Locomotive Works.
* A heavy utility vehicle body was developed in Canada. Four-thousand such vehicles were manufactured by General Motors in Oshawa. This vehicle body could be mounted on a 4x4 chassis and could, with slight modifications, be used as a personnel carrier, ambulance, light wireless, truck or machinery truck.

After the fall of France in May 1940, it became a priority to enlarge the Allies merchant shipping fleet, to replace ships lost, and to make sure that there were naval escort vessels to guard convoys against German submarines. Britain was highly vulnerable, and North American arms and supplies were a lifeline.

Canada in 1940 had just started to build patrol vessels for the protection of its own coasts, but Britain soon placed orders for 26 ten-thousand-tonne cargo ships and soon after orders for naval escorts and minesweepers. This was just the beginning, as Britain made clear it needed Canada to build as many naval and merchant ships as it possibly could. The practically non-existent Canadian interwar shipbuilding industry - three shipyards employing fewer than 4,000 men - expanded to 90 plants on the East and West Coasts, the Great Lakes and even inland. More than 126,000 men and women were employed.

* Canadian shipyards built 4,047 naval vessels
* Built 300 anti-submarine warships
* 4 Tribal class destroyers
* 410 cargo ships

At its wartime peak in September 1943, the industry was able to deliver the ten-thousand-tonne SS Fort Romaine in a stunning 58 days from the start of construction.

There were 348, ten thousand-ton, merchant ships built in Canada during the war. Large and relatively slow, but reliable and easily adapted to a variety of cargoes, these ships and those who sailed on them ensured the delivery of much of Canada’s war production.

* During 1941, the first of the large 10,000 ton merchant ships were taking an average of 307 days to build (and up to 426 days in one case). One year later, average production time had dropped to 163 days (with one ship being produced in a record 112 days).
* Some 57,000 individuals were employed in merchant shipbuilding and a further 27,000 worked in naval shipbuilding, which included building vessels like destroyers, frigates, corvettes, and minesweepers.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 12, 2007)

During the Second World War, the Canadian aircraft industry grew to employ nearly 120,000 workers, 30,000 of whom were women.

* It delivered 16,418 aircraft to fill Allied orders, chiefly from Britain and the United States, but also for use by the RCAF and BCATP.
* Before the war, there had been only eight small plants in the entire country, making about forty aeroplanes annually.
* The famous Avro Lancaster bomber rolled off the assembly line at Malton, Ont., now the site of Lester B. Pearson International Airport.

Canadian aviation industries manufactured parts for huge bombers and fighter aircraft like the Wasp, Mosquito, and Hawker Hurricane (whose laminated fuselages were made of wood harvested from the forests of British Columbia).

* Production in the aircraft industry went from extremely low levels before the war to 4,000 military aircraft a year by the end of the war.
* Canadian factory space for the production of aircraft increased from 500,000 square feet before the war to a high of 14,000,000 square feet at its peak during the war.
* Canadian industry pulled together to a great degree in many different ways and cooperated a great deal to produce vitally-needed war materials. For example, the contract to produce 1,100 Mosquito fighter-bombers was awarded to De Havilland, but they only did the final assembly. General Motors made the fuselages, Massey Ferguson made the wings, Boeing made the tailplanes, the flaps were made by Canadian Power Boat Company, and the undercarriages were built by Otaco. Numerous other smaller companies were also involved in producing other parts for this aircraft as well.


----------



## Glider (Dec 12, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> No one doubts the technical and scientific ability of the RN to combat the U-Boat threat. The question is if the RN had enough assetts to protect all of the convoys.



Using UBOAT.NET I make it about 
310 Frigates
366 corvettes 
144 destroyers (exWW1 and prewar A-I class) excludes fleet and ex USA vessels
266 anti Submarine trawlers
218 fleet minsweepers often used as A/S vessels

That makes it about 1300 convoy escorts. Plus 260 Canadian escorts.

As mentioned a number of times this would be concentrated on the Atlantic and Med. This makes the posibility of being able to support the convoys as being pretty good, particulary if Bomber Command can let them have some of the long range bombers in support.

As for Japan, if they were going to attack they would have done it when German or Italy declared war.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 12, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> 75% of what we talk about here is pure speculation at best. Syscom perhaps 85% speculation. This whole thread idea is pure speculation at best. Syscom (or you) cannot prove that USA saved Europe and PlanD cannot prove that Commonwealth with Russia could of won by themselves.
> 
> It's all speculation at best.



Many people have proven that the Commonwealth couldnt have defeated Germany without the manpower and industrial esorces of the US.

Just as the US couldnt have defeated the Germans alone, the Commonwealth couldnt either.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 12, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Many people have proven that the Commonwealth couldnt have defeated Germany without the manpower and industrial esorces of the US.
> 
> Just as the US couldnt have defeated the Germans alone, the Commonwealth couldnt either.




Hmmm seems that's what I have saying from the beginning. I am glad to see you actually put in print.

By the way my comment about you using 85% speculation was not a shot at you, you just like to start these "what if" type threads or enter into pure speculation type chats. No offense was meant towards you.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 12, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Hmmm seems that's what I have saying from the beginning.



So who wins the war? Russia or Germnay?


----------



## drgondog (Dec 12, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> 75% of what we talk about here is pure speculation at best. Syscom perhaps 85% speculation. This whole thread idea is pure speculation at best. Syscom (or you) cannot prove that USA saved Europe and PlanD cannot prove that Commonwealth with Russia could of won by themselves.
> 
> It's all speculation at best.



A tip O' the hat to ya, Hunter - I have exhausted my speculations and retiring from the field on this one


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 12, 2007)

drgondog said:


> A tip O' the hat to ya, Hunter - I have exhausted my speculations and retiring from the field on this one



Thats exactly why I get involved in these types of threads so little.......they just go around and around and around. Nobody proves anything beyond shadow of a doubt. Just people going in the same circle over and over again.

But I must admit I do watch them, because a person can learn the odd fact here and there that they never knew before.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 12, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> So who wins the war? Russia or Germnay?



Well I did miss understand one of your comments a few pages before, so I let me ask you to first define the limits of your question before I answer it.

- No USA lend lease or military help to Europe (UK and Russia)?

- USA and Japan fight it out between themselves from 41-45 still? Thus no UK forces fighting Japan then in Asia? Or is UK still fighting vs Japan also? Thus no A-bomb can be used vs Germany?

- UK and Germany still at war in 39? 

- BoB still happens as it did in real life?

- No USA in North Africa?

-Germany still has to wait until 41 to invade Russia?

-Russia and UK still Allies?

-Axis powers (in Europe) stay the same as in WW2? Or is it All Axis including Japan vs Russia and UK? (or is Japan not included b/c she is fighting USA only?)

Please answer those questions before I give you an answer.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 12, 2007)

I do believe most of the questions you ask are already in the thread


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 12, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I do believe most of the questions you ask are already in the thread



I know but some were asked by other people then Syscom, Syscom is asking for my opinion directly.....before I answer "him" I want to know by which set of rules are we playing.

Some people were assuming different things, I just want him and me to be on the same page....before I give my opinion.

Comparing apples to apples then.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 12, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Well I did miss understand one of your comments a few pages before, so I let me ask you to first define the limits of your question before I answer it.
> 
> *Basically Bill asked if Britain could have survived without USA. I also posted that they would have to manage to keep USSR in the war (for at least 18 months) otherwise Germany conquers all of Europe*
> 
> ...



Hope that answers your Q's...


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 13, 2007)

Yes it does thanks. I will think about it.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 13, 2007)

This how I see things panning out.

1) The Japanese attack Pearl Harbor as planned, with a US and britiah declaration of war the next day.

2) Germany refuses to declare war on the US, with the US not wanting to declare war untill Germany does it first. Either way, neither country trusts each other and a semi-beligerent status is maintained.

3) The US declares the Western Atlantic is declared a "German" free zone and the USN and USAAF given authorization to sink without warning any U-boats.

4) US shipping in the South Atlantic is told to have their running lights on and any sub attack would be considered a hostile attack.

1942:
In the Pacific, nothing will change. The US needs to build bases throughout the region before any buildup or offensive action begins. Plus some capital ships will still be needed in the Atlantic to guard against the German BB's from sortie into the Western Atlantic.
In Africa, the Brits still win because of the logistics issues the Germans had. 

1943:
With more material available for the Pacific, the US and ANZACians begin to really kick ass in the 2nd part of the year. But the central pacific offensive still wont occur untill late in the year simply because the USN had to wait untill the fleet carriers were there and ready to fight.
In the Med, I would venture to say the Commonwealth could invade Sicily sometime after the middle of the year. But any invasion of Italy itself would not happen due to a lack of shipping and air assetts. I would contemplate them invading Corsica and Sardinia instead, thus securing the Med.

1944: With no credible threat from the Commonwealth, the Germans redeploy their divisions and LW units to the east and could successfully limit the impact of Russian offensives. The commmonwealths main problem is that without US involvement in the war, they have severe manpower shortages and not enough industrial capacity for this year or the next. The German tank forces are 300% better than the allied, so the commonwealth needs to find away to quadruple its production. Same with aircraft production....tens of thousands of aircraft of all types will be needed and no matter how productive Canada is, they do not have the ability to build that many.

1945: Russia and Germany have taken so many losses that they agree to a defacto cease fire 'and lick their wounds". Still the commonwealth cant plan for an invasion for this year due to the increase in effectiveness of the LW due to jets, improved tanks and AFV's and te inability for the commonwealth to build enough of whats needed.

1946: Who knows.


Hunter, no matter how you "spin" how much Canada produced in the war.... it still comes down to the fact they you are small country with limited manpower and infastructure. Its a fact Canada built plenty of convoy escorts, but how are you going to build the vast armada of landing craft and transports needed to successfully invade the contient on a scale approaching the Normandy operation. Same question about the tanks and AFV's... same with the 10's fo thousands of multi engined bombers. Building a few thousand from a single plant hardly compares to the 2 dozen or so plants in the US.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 13, 2007)

Syscom, first let me say this......I never said Canada could do "anything". I just posted facts about Canadian war production......I never added anything else after that. But you have to admit what we did produce was amazing considering we had a population of only 11 million people at the time. For such a small population we kicked butt in WW2.

There I was tooting the Canadian horn a little there......kinda feels good! Something I rarely do.  


I respond to your question and post soon.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 13, 2007)

-39 and 40 go the same as it did in WW2 but without any lend lease from USA to UK.

-Eastern Atlantic (and North Atlantic to Canada) becoming a fierce battle ground between RN (and RAF) and U-boats. 

-Germany would most likely take Gibraltar to use as a base of operations. Using Spain to move their troops threw Spain. UK would be unable to stop them.

-UK would still defeat Italy/Germany in NA and perhaps take over colonies in Africa to use as bases to help fight their U boat battles. Air battles would happen between Gibraltar (LW) and NA (RAF).

-Japan would not attack USA if their was no oil embargo. Unless pushed into a corner later in war.

-Japan keeps up her attacks on China, perhaps Burma and Dutch East Indies.

-UK would feel the pinch fighting in Med, Atlantic and East.

-Russia/Germany. Germany invades in 41 and crushes Russia early. 

-As war grinds on UK and Russia keep Germany at bay. UK maintains control of seas and NA......but on her heels in East. Russia holds Germany but Germany punishes Russia brutally. Russia/Germany/UK all bleed each other dry in long drawn out war. In the end the war ends in 46-47 after long blood bath by all in Europe.......draw. Germany holding France and parts of Eastern Europe. UK holding much of Africa and seas (Perhaps parts of Italy). Russia holding parts of Eastern Europe and Turkey maybe.

-Japan and Russia avoid each other in the east b/c neither wants a fight with the other. Russia has hands full with Germany and Japan sees Russia as a foe she cannot beat on a land battle.

-Big winner is Japan as long as she does not create or start a war with the sleeping giant..........USA.

-If Japan does not end up in a war with USA she will gain huge land chunks in China and and Dutch East Indies and maybe Australia. Without angering USA into a war UK/China cannot stop Japan in East. Japan would not anger Russia into a war either......truely neither Russia or Japan want a war with each other.

-If Japan does start a war with USA......she will be crushed even faster then she was in real WW2.

In summary I cannot see UK and Russia being able to totally defeat Germany/Japan/Italy by themselves. (please note when I say UK and truely mean Commonwealth in my whole post) UK would win the battle with U boats but it would be a bloody hard fought win. War in Europe would be a long drawn out bloody war with no true winner. Japan wins big as long as she does not draw Russia or USA into the war with her. If Russia does come into war with Japan after war is over in Europe Russia would push Japan out of China. But Russia could do nothing to stop Japan's gains in South Pacific.......only USA could stop her there.


But of course I would be the first to admit that the war could take many different angles then what I have stated......mine is just one version of many.

But bottom line I don't see UK/Russia beating Japan/Germany/Italy in a total war......meaning it would end in a negotiated peace. All with bloody noses.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 13, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> This how I see things panning out.
> 
> 1) The Japanese attack Pearl Harbor as planned, with a US and britiah declaration of war the next day.



Syscom, why would the Japanese attack the USA in '41?



Glider said:


> I think the major divergence of opinion is what happens with Japan. If the USA is strictly neutral, then in my opinion Japan wouldn't attack as they wouldn't have been forced into a corner re oil and scrap metal which the USA embargoed. As a result, the British wouldn't have had any losses.
> Japan may have been party to agreements with Germany and Italy but they didn't declare war on Britain when Germany did, or when the Italians did. *The Japanese only declared war on the British, when they attacked the USA*. There was no reason for Japan to attack Britain, their main preocupation was consolidating their grip on China.





Freebird said:


> About Japan, Glider is exactly correct, Japan's LAST option was for war with USA in 1942, they wanted to finish China first, at least 12 - 18 months work, their second priority was the Soviet far east. I have an excellent book "70 days to Singapore", by Stanley Falk USAF historian. He quotes Japanese sources on the Imperial conference of July 1941 deciding that because of the crippling sanctions, war with US UK was the only option. However, they were prepared to call off the attacks as late as Nov 1941, if agreement could be reached with the Dutch. (who because of US pressure refused to sell oil to Japan)





Syscom said:


> 2) Germany refuses to declare war on the US, with the US not wanting to declare war untill Germany does it first. Either way, neither country trusts each other and a semi-beligerent status is maintained.
> 
> 3) The US declares the Western Atlantic is declared a "German" free zone and the USN and USAAF given authorization to sink without warning any U-boats.
> 
> ...



[Ok, about this "manpower shortage". The commonwealth had under-utilised troops up until 1944. The Canadian corps never went into combat until mid '43. Also in 1943 the Canadian 6 division was sent to garrison Kiska (that would be part of the USA) The Commonwealth would not need to send a dozen or so divisions + air naval forces to fight the Japanese in N. Guinea, Burma, Malaya etc.

Remember this: *Britain the Dominions (67.5 million) are almost the same population as Greater Germany, 71 million.* (not counting non-Germans) (UK 46 million, Canada 11, Australia 7, NZ 1.5, S. Africa 2) The Industrial capability of the UK/Commonwealth was about the same as Germany, but the oil/resource situation of Germany was far worse. So any "manpower shortage" would affect Germany too.

Germany also had Italy, Rumania Finland as allies, plus production from France Czech factories. Do you want to compare that to Russian manpower production in 1943 - 1944? I havn't even included the British colonies, with manpower of 100's of millions (India also contributed many divisions to the war effort)


Syscom said:


> The German tank *forces* are 300% better than the allied, so the commonwealth needs to find away to quadruple its production.



Do you have any basis for 300% better? Do you have any loss figures for tanks in the desert?

Agreed, I would rather be in a Panzer IV than a Crusader (unless the Panzer is out of gas....) Remember that the 8th army beat Rommel in Oct 1942 WITHOUT any US troops. (Yes I know, we did get some US tanks, but we had over 800 Canadian tanks sitting in Canada UK, I'd rather have a Ram II than a Gen Grant) 


Syscom said:


> Same with aircraft production....tens of thousands of aircraft of all types will be needed and no matter how productive Canada is, they do not have the ability to build that many.


In WWII the German aircraft production never equaled the Commonwealth, except in 1944. UK aircraft built: '39 - 7,940 '40 - 15,000, '41 - 20,000, '42 - 23,600, '43 - 26,200, '44 - 26,400. Germany built 400 more aircraft than the UK in 1939, 4,000 less in 1940, 7,000 less in 1941, 8,000 less in 1942, 1,500 less in 1943. 

In 1944 Germany finally out built the UK 40,500 to 26,400, but in this year the Russians built 40,300. 

So in every year from 1939 - 1943 the Allies (NOT including USA) built 2 or 3 times many aircraft as Germany, except in 1944 when they could only manage to out-build Germany 1.8 to 1

Note: Total Canadian WWII production as mentioned by Hunter: 16,000. The Italians built: 11,500

Aircraft production tables:
WW2 Aircraft Production Numbers




Syscom said:


> 1945: Russia and Germany have taken so many losses that they agree to a defacto cease fire 'and lick their wounds".
> *The Soviets would never stop to let Germany re-build, they would keep attacking until they win (or were conquered)*
> Still the commonwealth cant plan for an invasion for this year due to the increase in effectiveness of the LW due to jets,
> 
> ...



As I already posted:



Freebird said:


> To succeed in this scenario the British need to do 5 things.
> 
> 1.) Maintain enough shipping keep losses from U-boats to a managable level.
> 
> ...



Of course they would have to ramp up production as well.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 13, 2007)

and without the US where would we get these Merlins that powered most of the combat aircraft we made . Canada made the Hurricane , Lancaster , Mosquito, Cat, Helldiver , Blenheim and the Lincoln(1) all these aircraft used american equipment and engines .


----------



## Glider (Dec 13, 2007)

Following Freebirds outline here are my thoughts

1939-1941 nothing changes 
1942 The UK reinforces the Middle East with forces that would have been sent to the Far East and knock the Italians out of the war. Germany being tied up in Russia were not able to increase the support assigned to Rommel.
In the Atantic the Naval forces lost in the 'Pacific real world' are not lost and add to the naval forces in the Atlantic. The Hermes and the Argus can be used as escort carriers being to small for fleet actions. This combined with long range bombers released from Bomber command keep Merchant marine losses to acceptable levels. 
More escort carriers are needed but being able to concentrate long ranged shore based bombers on the convoys without a carrier will help reduce this risk.
In the USA they are not attacked but their build up continued, their naval forces are a lot stronger than in Dec 1941. The USAAF is better equipped with modern bombers B17C, A20, B25, B26, the fighters are equipped with P40's and P38. With luck the USA recognise that the P39 is best used as a GA aircraft. Her army is better equipped with modern weapons and tanks albieit M3 light tanks which are sufficient for the Pacific arena.
Japan cannot match this build up. Her naval forces in particular will lag behind.
Russia loses more ground than actually happened but Germany is overstretched logistically, the ground gained being of little strategic benefit.

1943 Japan has attacked the USA or has she? would she in view of the disparity in forces? 
Anyway the assumption is that Japan does attack and the USA put a Pacific first policy in place. The British areas are wide open to attack and the results are similar but America is a much tougher nut to crack. Pearl Harbour is as devastating but the land war goes better for the USA. The following naval battles are more in favour of the USA and the Japanese lose vessels they couldn't replace.
In the Atlantic the sea war goes as history. The technical advances build up and the battle turns against the U Boats. British escort carriers start to come on stream and make a difference, plus british losses are less than historical as the atlantic gap was closed earlier.
The Russian wars continue and Russia fights the Germans to a stalemate.

1944 In the Pacific Japan is in serious trouble, Her naval forces are crushed and the captured British areas are cut off and left to wither.
In Russia its basically a stalemate with both sides being bled white.
The UK is safe and the forces are built up but an invasion is not on the cards

1945 the USA is in a position to assist the British. Japan surrenders and forces are switched to the European front. The stories over what the Germans are doing the Jews have leaked out and its politically impossible for the USA to stay out. In Russia the German forces still hold out but its on the defensive.

1946 The invasion of Europe takes place. History basically follows what happened but 12 months later.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 13, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> -39 and 40 go the same as it did in WW2 but without any lend lease from USA to UK.
> 
> -Eastern Atlantic (and North Atlantic to Canada) becoming a fierce battle ground between RN (and RAF) and U-boats.
> 
> ...



My earlier post on the "endgame" 


Freebird said:


> Suppose as in my hypothesis the British DO support Russia enough to tip the balance in the east. The only way for *anything approaching a British Victory *would depend on Germany coming to an agreement to a truce with Britain AFTER they have lost the Eastern war but BEFORE Germany is occupied by Russia. Very tricky to say the least.
> The British might make an offer to moderate, intelligent, German Generals ie (Rommel, Guderian, Manstien) something like this: Arrest the top Nazi's (Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Eichmann etc) for trial, then and ONLY THEN the UK would consider a truce with a new German Government, with the Germans moving back to approx. their 1914 borders. And yes this would be considered a double-cross by Stalin, but I don't know if Russia would continue the war if they got their territory back Britain is no longer fighting + the Japanese are threatening in the East. the only real acceptable outcome for the UK (absent of US involvement) is a stalemate between Germany Russia, total domination of the continent by Russia is almost as bad as by Germany. This would be a continuation of Britain's 19th century "Continental policy" of preventing any one power from dominating all of Europe.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 13, 2007)

Freebird,

Yes Hitler was very upset and even refused to allow Franco's name be uttered in his presents. Hitler had in place a plan to invade Spain and seize Gibraltar and he could of pulled it off if he wanted to.

Yes Japan would be very wise to not angry USA, thus keep them out of the war in South Pacific.

I agree Germany would of done no better in 41, that was what I was trying to say also if I was unclear. Not so sure Kursk would of been any different in 43 even without Lend lease.

Japan would not or should not wait to wage war until 43, she should attack when UK is weak, 39-40 would of been perfect. Then UK is stretched thin between NA, East, Med, Atlantic and defending herself.


----------



## renrich (Dec 13, 2007)

Without the armed forces of the US. Without the weapons manufactured in the US. Without the food grown in the US. Without the raw materials that came from the US. Without the OIL that came from the US. Germany would have won the war in Europe PERIOD.


----------



## m kenny (Dec 13, 2007)

renrich said:


> Without the armed forces of the US. Without the weapons manufactured in the US. Without the food grown in the US. Without the raw materials that came from the US. Without the OIL that came from the US. Germany would have won the war in Europe PERIOD.



Without the hot air from like minded myopics the world would not be as warm as it now is.

Russia did more than any other nation to defeat Germany. Thanks for your help but please dont try and claim you were decisive.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 13, 2007)

m kenny said:


> Without the hot air from like minded myopics the world would not be as warm as it now is.
> 
> Russia did more than any other nation to defeat Germany. Thanks for your help but please dont try and claim you were decisive.



The industrial power of the US ensured the success of the war against Germany.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 14, 2007)

renrich said:


> Without the armed forces of the US. Without the weapons manufactured in the US. Without the food grown in the US. Without the raw materials that came from the US. Without the OIL that came from the US. Germany would have won the war in Europe PERIOD.



Renrich, Britain the Allies had more than enough food, raw materials oil to supply the war effort, the problem was finding enough ships to send it. The US did not have any troops involved in Europe until Nov 1942, except for some garrisoning Iceland. After Dec 1941 the US was only able to supply a few ships to Britain for the first year, because the US need to replace its own losses, to build up for the Pacific war. The US was not able to do much against the U-boats in 1942, as they were involved in the Pacific.


syscom3 said:


> One thing to ponder on about the US contribution to the war in Europe..... it wasn't untill summer of 1943 that there were enough troops and amphib ships for the US and Brits to be a factor in Italy.
> 
> The Germans essentially lost the war in Russia at Stalingrad long before the US's power was felt.



After Stalingrad I don't think that Germany could beat the USSR, even if the USA sent no aid at all.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Dec 14, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Yes Japan would be very wise to not angry USA, thus keep them out of the war in South Pacific.
> 
> I agree Germany would of done no better in 41, that was what I was trying to say also if I was unclear. Not so sure Kursk would of been any different in 43 even without Lend lease.
> 
> Japan would not or should not wait to wage war until 43, she should attack when UK is weak, 39-40 would of been perfect. Then UK is stretched thin between NA, East, Med, Atlantic and defending herself.


By attacking the British and Dutch, the USA will enter the war in the Pacific earlier. American interests in the area would be threatened.

................................

Lend/Lease
11Mar41. US votes Lend-Lease Act to aid England.
11Nov41. Lend Lease for France.
21Nov41. Lend Lease for Iceland.

Before these dates, it was 'cash and carry'.

_From Aug 1941, 40 convoys went across the North Atlantic to Russia containing 720 ships, of which 90 were lost, which provided 23% of the aid to the Soviet Union. Over twice as much went by way of the Far East. The rest by way of the Persian Gulf, Black Sea or Arctic.
UK aid entailed 811 shiploads by all routes._

_Alan Clarke and David Glantz, say that lend lease was very helpful in shortening the war, but did not decide it.

Glantz says "Lend-Lease aid did not arrive in sufficient quantities to make a difference between defeat and victory in 1941-1942''

According to Glantz, had Stalin and his commanders been left to their own devices, it "might have taken 12 to 18 months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht," but "the ultimate result would probably have been the same._

Total Cargo shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the Soviet Union

Total 17,499,861

1941 360,778 - 2%
1942 2,453,097 - 14% - 16% of total
1943 4,794,545 - 27% - 43% of total
1944 6,217,622 - 35% - 78% of total
1945 3,673,819 - 21% - 100% of total 

Engines of the Red Army in WW2 - Routes Overview

As can be seen only 16% of all of Lend/Lease had been delivered by the end of 1942. To say that L/L was decisive in the 1943 battles is dreaming. 

There is no way the USA would not supply material as the American god, the mighty $$$$, would reign supreme.


----------



## Pflueger (Dec 14, 2007)

There is no way the USA would not supply material as the American god, the mighty $$$$, would reign supreme.[/QUOTE]

Probably the most valid point made on this thread thus far. Don't get me wrong, its an interesting discussion - why else would I still be keeping up with it after 50+ pages? Wish some of the posters on either side would tone tone the patriotic rhetoric a bit though. 

This Yank is greatful to the Brits for hanging in there when the chips were down. That said, I do believe that without US involvement Japan sweeps over China, and a second front opens up which dooms the USSR. Japan could not have allowed her partner to fall. Often I get the feeling that Japanese capabilities are discounted on this forum. When you consider the massive commitment in manpower, ships, planes it took the US (and allies of course) to subdue Japan, what can the Russia do protect its east flank? Even after Stalingrad there would be no way Russia could defend its backside = several divisions would have to be removed from the "western" front giving Germany a chance to regroup and renew the offensive.

Its a good thing the Japanese didn't make their strike at Vladivostock (sp?)Harbor instead of Pearl Harbor, perhaps then the entire world would be speaking German (think Germany would have disposed of Japan somewhere down the line).


----------



## plan_D (Dec 14, 2007)

The Japanese were wary of Soviet Russia after Khalin-Gol; I don't think the Japanese had much of a chance to defeat the Soviet Union in open combat.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 14, 2007)

freebird said:


> After Stalingrad I don't think that Germany could beat the USSR, even if the USA sent no aid at all.





100% agree


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 14, 2007)

plan_D said:


> The Japanese were wary of Soviet Russia after Khalin-Gol; I don't think the Japanese had much of a chance to defeat the Soviet Union in open combat.



100% agree


----------



## plan_D (Dec 14, 2007)

Sharks only attack you when you're wet.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 14, 2007)

Pflueger said:


> This Yank is greatful to the Brits for hanging in there when the chips were down. That said, I do believe that without US involvement Japan sweeps over China, and a second front opens up which dooms the USSR. Japan could not have allowed her partner to fall. Often I get the feeling that Japanese capabilities are discounted on this forum. When you consider the massive commitment in manpower, ships, planes it took the US (and allies of course) to subdue Japan, what can the Russia do protect its east flank? Even after Stalingrad there would be no way Russia could defend its backside = several divisions would have to be removed from the "western" front giving Germany a chance to regroup and renew the offensive.
> 
> Its a good thing the Japanese didn't make their strike at Vladivostock (sp?)Harbor instead of Pearl Harbor, perhaps then the entire world would be speaking German (think Germany would have disposed of Japan somewhere down the line).





plan_D said:


> The Japanese were wary of Soviet Russia after Khalin-Gol; I don't think the Japanese had much of a chance to defeat the Soviet Union in open combat.



I think PlanD is right, the Japanese would not take on USSR, at least until they were in better position in China. In 1941 the Japanese had been fighting in China for 4 years, and had less than half the country under control. 

That being said, if the Japanese were not so anxious to remove the Russian threat before Pearl Harbour, they might not have signed the Japan-USSR nonagression pact which allowed the Russians to withdraw 10 - 15 divisions from the Manchurian border, and get about a quarter of Allied supplies through Vladivostok (mostly bulk commodities)


----------



## Pflueger (Dec 14, 2007)

Don't get me wrong, I do not consider myself in the same league with you guys, and I also feel that the US owes a debt of gratitude to the UK for standing firm. I have often had the same nagging thoughts regarding Axis strategy (or lack of) - this thread brings some of these questions into play and your opinions are all appreciated and weighed heavily as my "reeducation" process continues. My thoughts: 

I think the Japanese would have a chance in the "open" ground: especially if we are talking an exposed/weakly defended flank (which was the case when Soviet units were withdrawn to defend Moscow). Does not matter how well we believe the Japanese soldier stacks up against the Soviet, a Japanese thrust would require drastic action from the Soviets. Japanese armor sucked true - but think the power of their airforce (local Soviet airforce would have been overwhelmed) would help overcome this weakness. Also thinking that long supply line for Soviets would be very vulnerable (even to a few Bettys). I may be wrong but I believe at this time there were a very limited number of rail lines linking this region of USSR to the west = all source of all supplies.

OK maybe Japan does not attack Soviet Union, but...

Even if Russia is not attacked I do not think Japan would rest on their laurels and be content with early conquests. Japan would have continued moving forward cutting away at the UK worldwide. Where would the naval/air forces come from to stop Japanese from putting on a strangle hold? If the Japanese are not checked the vital resources being funneled in from the empire are going to dry up. 

Could the Royal Navy have diverted enough ships away from atlantic/ mediterranean (sp?) theaters to deal with Japanese naval and, in particular, the massive Japanese carrier forces which were second to none? (and would have continued to reign supreme without US entry/escalation). 

When Royal Navy units are detacted Atlantic losses to U-boats would escalate. Med Sea is compromised, invasion threat to Fortress Europe is nullified, Malta may fall, African forces are cut off... A weakened Britain poses a more limited threat in all theaters, German troops are freed up to hold the line on the Soviets. Sooner or later Stalin would run out of troops to lead into the meat grinder.

Thanks for letting me play.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Dec 14, 2007)

We hear all the time how American L-L trucks helped the Soviets.
Some numbers, which show only 19% of the Soviet truck park were imported. This would include British and Canadian deliveries.
Lend Lease trucks in Russia


----------



## Udet (Dec 14, 2007)

The confidence of those who believe the USA was not essential for attaining victory in Europe grows stronger as the thread goes on.

You can enjoy your pipe dreams and assess whatever data you want to bring out to nurture your illusions ; if you feel comfortable believing UK and USSR were sufficient to defeat Germany that is all right.

Freebird: yes, we all know Montgomery defeated the Afrika Korps units at El-Alamein...believe me i know it. But the question would remain, are u sure victory at El-Alamein in late 1942 as it occurred would still bring complete victory in North Africa without Operation Torch occurring during the same days when the fight was going on at El-Alamein?

Will the Italians seek under-the-table negotiations with the Western Allies without the USA landing first in North/West Africa then in the Mediterranean (Sicily)? Do you think Great Britain/Commonwealth power alone could have caused all this in North Africa/Mediterranean? 

And do not misunderstand my views: i am not saying Torch landings in North/West Africa had any sort of "direct" impact on what was going on at El-Alamein...such battle will have the same outcome. Rather i am referring to the events which followed El-Alamein.

I really love this allied style for considering the first significant allied victory in the war as the so-called "turning point". You are not going to deny El-Alamein is the first significant victory of the British against the Heer are you?

Recall the British Army record:

(i) BEF in 1940.
(ii) Norway;
(iii) Greece;
(iv) Crete;
(v) First period of Rommel in command of the Afrika Korps.

Yes, there were setbacks and local defeats; i´d recall Tobruk where Australian troops held the ground for some time. But the true outcome for those battles on the list is clear: complete Germany victory -except in North Africa, late 1942-.

I digress: i talk about TRUE COMPLETE SIGNIFICANT victories in a battle, and not local defeats, setbacks or mishaps, which did occur during the first "unbeatable" years of the Wehrmacht. I do not see the Wehrmacht as a perfect body, still i see it as the best army. (Battle of Arras? Rommel stopped them dead, slammed them back real hard and routed them).

Also the symptoms of the Allied obssessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are easily detected in the Eastern Front with Stalingrad; first Russian victory, therefore we have a "turning point"...after that -and this is one of the symptoms- they suggest: "it was all down the hill for the Germans". Entertaining.

So try to reason this, can complete victory in North Africa be attained with only the British defeating the Rommel´s units at El-Alamein absent USA -critical- contribution for Torch? I am sure you are going to say "Yes", but i think i would like to see your arguments on the matter.

Finally on the LL which i have discusses ad nauseam here and elsewhere, it is also funny how both the Brits and USA invested all that human and material effort which after all, as suggested here, would make a marginal contribution to the soviet war effort -zero contribution as stated by too many people in Russia-. Another point for entertaiment -which is also another one of the Allied OCD´s symptoms-.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 14, 2007)

Udet, the Brits won El Alamein fair and square, without a lot of US help.

Logistics was always the weak link of the Germans, and their expedition into Egypt put them at a very long supply line, that was increasingly vulnerable to attack.

Even without the US contribution to the Torch operation, the Commonwealth was going to win.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 14, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Udet, the Brits won El Alamein fair and square, without a lot of US help.
> 
> Logistics was always the weak link of the Germans, and their expedition into Egypt put them at a very long supply line, that was increasingly vulnerable to attack.
> 
> Even without the US contribution to the Torch operation, the Commonwealth was going to win.



Wow, I totally agree with Syscom on one of his posts! Let me go right that one down on the calender.   

But I do agree with you Syscom on this post. But I do also agree some what with Udet that NA would of been a much harder victory for UK without USA attacked from a second front.

Questions for people:

How many German troops faced US forces in NA and how many faced UK forces in NA at the same time after the US landings?


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 14, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> ....right that one down on the calender. ....



Its "write", not right.

Sorry... I'm a spelling nazi tonight!


----------



## Freebird (Dec 15, 2007)

Udet said:


> The confidence of those who believe the USA was not essential for attaining victory in Europe grows stronger as the thread goes on.
> 
> You can enjoy your pipe dreams and assess whatever data you want to bring out to nurture your illusions ; if you feel comfortable believing UK and USSR were sufficient to defeat Germany that is all right.



Well perhaps do you have the "illusion" that with a few hundred more planes another dozen divisions that Germany could have turned things around after "Stalingrad"?  Since most of the thread is theories about what MIGHT HAVE BEEN, actual historical data is much more useful than guesswork or opinions. There are questions about how much tonnage was needed by UK, how many divisions were available, how many planes could be produced etc. That is much more interesting relavent than someone who just has the opinion "Germany would win" or "Germany would lose". Al Shlageter's quote from Gantz says that the Soviets think they could have beaten Germany without Allied help but I don't agree. 

The situation on the eastern front is one where the Soviets have more manpower reserves, production capacity resources than the Reich. Germany has the initial advantage in combat, so I think that there is a "point of balance" between victory defeat. Obviously they failed to get to that point in the historical model. I think that if Germany had attacked the Soviets in March '41 they would have a better chance to get to the "point of no return", supposing that by October, they could capture Leningrad, surround Moscow, and capture the Caucasus. Thats my best guess, that if the British could supply at least 80 - 90% of the tanks, planes, supplies etc up to Oct 1942 then the Soviets could prevail at Stalingrad and the Germans would not be able to knock them out of the war in 1943. After mid-1943 if the lend-lease aid is much less then I think it would prolong the war, not reverse it. 


Udet said:


> Freebird: yes, we all know Montgomery defeated the Afrika Korps units at El-Alamein...believe me i know it. But the question would remain, are u sure victory at El-Alamein in late 1942 as it occurred would still bring complete victory in North Africa without Operation Torch occurring during the same days when the fight was going on at El-Alamein?
> 
> Will the Italians seek under-the-table negotiations with the Western Allies without the USA landing first in North/West Africa then in the Mediterranean (Sicily)? Do you think Great Britain/Commonwealth power alone could have caused all this in North Africa/Mediterranean?
> 
> And do not misunderstand my views: i am not saying Torch landings in North/West Africa had any sort of "direct" impact on what was going on at El-Alamein...such battle will have the same outcome. Rather i am referring to the events which followed El-Alamein.



*Am I sure what would happen in Africa at that point? No. As in war everything is a chance.* USA only landed 6 divisions at Torch, the UK Commonwealth could send the forces needed for Torch, provided they took control of events in the Med. As I posted earlier, assuming that the USA is not providing aid in 1941 it would be foolish to contemplate the Greek intervention. If the Generals that argued against it had prevailed in March '41, it would have been a completely different story in Africa. The fact that the British could rely on the US to replace losses had a big influence on the choice to land in Greece. If the British still foolishly land in Greece in the "No USA" scenario it becomes very difficult for them to recover from the loss of 8,000 vehicles and 100's of guns.


Udet said:


> I really love this allied style for considering the first significant allied victory in the war as the so-called "turning point". You are not going to deny El-Alamein is the first significant victory of the British against the Heer are you?


*Are you claiming that "Crusader" was a German victory in Nov 1941?* I think stopping Rommel, forcing him to retreat, capturing 100's of German tanks guns, and relieving the seige of Tobruk was a pretty big victory for the Allies. Yes, and the next battle "Gazala" in May '42 was lost by the British, but if they had lost "Crusader" as well they would probably be all the way back to Alexandria. 

El Alamein is considered the turning point because it was the farthest point reached by the Axis, after that it was just a long retreat back


Udet said:


> Recall the British Army record:
> 
> (i) BEF in 1940.
> (ii) Norway;
> ...



Well you might be right about that too. I think the Russians are too dismissive about lend-lease, and the USA puts too much value on it, ie "US supplies won the war". My own opinion is that the supplies in the first 12 - 15 months or so are very important, the supplies up to mid 1943 have some value, and anything sent after that made very little difference to the outcome of the war.

So now I have some questions for you, if you know.

In mid-1943 I believe, the LW had to withdraw some forces to help to combat the US air force raids. How many day fighters were transfered back from the east to the Reich in the first half of 1943, and when were they transferred? 

From the information I have, the collapse of the LW became serious in July Aug of 1943, after Kursk. The 8th AF had just over 200 crews available in June of '43, and 300 in July, 450 in October, nearly 1,000
by the end of the year. So the daylight raid were not really a big factor until the second half of '43. From the info I have about Kursk, there was a huge series of air battles, the Germans had the better aircraft, but the huge #'s of Russians wore them down. Also the German LW suffered from fuel shorages.

A good article about LW attrition
Attrition and the Luetwaffe

luftwaffe

OK Udet, assuming for the sake of argument that I am correct, that the British can supply the Russians with almost all of the lend lease up to Stalingrad, 75% until Kursk, and 50% after that (after Kursk lend-lease is mostly food, raw materials, some peteoleum some trucks, but no tanks or planes) Also assume that the British can do Torch, and Sicily. Mussolini is deposed, the Italians sign an armistice and are disarmed occupied by Germany. The British threaten to land in Italy, France the Balkans (to keep German troops there) but do not land in 1943.

*My Question*
If from Jan of 1943 - June of 1944 the Germans could have 2 extra infantry divisions per month on the Russian Front, + 1 extra Panzer division every 2 months from Mar 1943 (in Mar, May, July, Sept, Nov '43 Jan, Mar May 1944.) Also assume that the LW could transfer 150 fighters to the east per month *from March of 1943, could the Germans turn things around?* 

This assumes that without US in the war, Germany could transfer 24 inf divisions, 5 Panzer divisions and 1,500 fighters to the Russian front in 1943.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 15, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Its "write", not right.
> 
> Sorry... I'm a spelling nazi tonight!



LOL no problem, actually I can't believe I wrote that.


----------



## renrich (Dec 15, 2007)

With all due respect to Mr Kenney: Probably the finest book ever written about the oil industry is by Daniel Yergin, "The Prize." It should be required reading in Washington, if anyone there can read. Regarding the Battle of the Atlantic, " the Battle of the Atlantic became even more dangerous in the second half of 1942." This was well after the US was in the war. " In mid December,(1942) Churchill was told there was only about 2-months supply of fuel oil for ships in Britain." "By the spring of 1943, British oil stocks were at their lowest levels yet." "In March, the U-boats sank 108 ships." These quotes are to point out that these low points were well after the US entered the war. The Battle of the Atlantic could not have been won if the US had not been in the war. "Almost all of the Allies' needs for 100-octane fuel had to be met by American production-almost 90 per cent of the total by 1944." The Allies consumed 7 billion barrels of oil during WW2, 6 billion of those barrels came from the US. Most of the tankers that transported that oil across the seas were built in the US. Aside from weapons, food, raw materials and fighting men, does anyone suppose that the Allies without the US could have won the war with only 1 billion barrels of oil. Malta could not have survived to become the launching pad for AC to sever Rommels supply lines without gasoline from the US. Remember the SS Ohio? Where does one think the fuel came from to power Monty's tanks,(many of them made in the US) at El Alamein. It is unrealistic to believe that the Allies could have won the war in Europe without the US.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 15, 2007)

I think without US help any chance of a total victory with western Europe remaining in the democratic sphere is whimsical . However the belief (in the US) that the US was the best of all things in WW2 is also a flight of fancy


----------



## drgondog (Dec 15, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I think without US help any chance of a total victory with western Europe remaining in the democratic sphere is whimsical . However the belief (in the US) that the US was the best of all things in WW2 is also a flight of fancy



Pb - I have held with your Opinion for a long time on this thread... and my focus has always been oil first, food second for Britain... then keeping Jap fleet away from Indian Ocean and points west in 1942.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 15, 2007)

renrich said:


> With all due respect to Mr Kenney: Probably the finest book ever written about the oil industry is by Daniel Yergin, "The Prize." It should be required reading in Washington, if anyone there can read. Regarding the Battle of the Atlantic, " the Battle of the Atlantic became even more dangerous in the second half of 1942." This was well after the US was in the war. " In mid December,(1942) Churchill was told there was only about 2-months supply of fuel oil for ships in Britain." "By the spring of 1943, British oil stocks were at their lowest levels yet." "In March, the U-boats sank 108 ships." These quotes are to point out that these low points were well after the US entered the war. The Battle of the Atlantic could not have been won if the US had not been in the war. "Almost all of the Allies' needs for 100-octane fuel had to be met by American production-almost 90 per cent of the total by 1944." The Allies consumed 7 billion barrels of oil during WW2, 6 billion of those barrels came from the US. Most of the tankers that transported that oil across the seas were built in the US. Aside from weapons, food, raw materials and fighting men, does anyone suppose that the Allies without the US could have won the war with only 1 billion barrels of oil. Malta could not have survived to become the launching pad for AC to sever Rommels supply lines without gasoline from the US. Remember the SS Ohio? Where does one think the fuel came from to power Monty's tanks,(many of them made in the US) at El Alamein. It is unrealistic to believe that the Allies could have won the war in Europe without the US.



Since everybody wants to know about AvGas....  

Sorry, Renrich, but I think your information is incorrect, the the largest supply came from the *subsidiary of a US company, Esso* (ex - Standard Oil) located in Aruba, *outside the USA.* The US supplied oil in WWII because it was easiest to transport directly from the USA, *The Allies had more than enough oil to supply their needs, as well as refineries outside the USA, which in 1940 supplied 3/4 of the 100 octane Avgas*. The 3 principal sources of oil (other than USA) for the Allies were the 1) Persian Gulf (Iran Iraq) 2) East Indies (Borneo, Sarawak, Burma) and 3) Mexico/Venezuala. The East Indies Persian Gulf oilfields were developed controlled by British Petroleum Royal Dutch Shell, they also had major holdings in Venezuela. *The largest refinery in the world in WWII is the Lago refinery on the (Dutch) island of Aruba in the Caribbean,* which was expanded due to the pre-war contract signed with the UK to provide AvGas. 
Lago website (excuse the grammar, it's translated from Dutch)
LAGO HISTORY

The developemnt of a 100 octane fuel

Britain began stockpiling 100 octane fuel with receipt in June 1939 of a
bulk shipment from the refinery in Aruba. This initial shipment of 100
octane fuel was soon supplemented with further shipments from the same
refienry and from other refineries in Curacao and the United States. Upon
the beginning of the war and the establishment of the U.S. Neutrality Act,
shipments of the 100 octane fuel from American refineries to the stockpiles
in Britain were interrupted for a period of time. *Alternate stocks of the 100 octane fuel were obtained from Persia, Borneo, South Africa and the Caribbean,* until President Roosevelt found a means to resume some American shipments of the 100 octane fuel to Britain. *Some 90% of the production from the refinery in Abadan, Persia eventually became devoted to supplying the RAF's needs for AvGas*. Avgas can also be obtained by adding iso-octane to regular 87 octane gasoline. Iso-octane, was obtained by the alkylation process developed patented by the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company's Sunbury Research Laboratory in 1935. 

Anglo-Iranian Oil had been developing from 1936 another high octane leaded fuel for British aviation engines based on high-benzole Venezuelan crude oil blended with iso-octane from the British refinery at Abadan. Bulk supply contracts were placed by the Air Ministry in 1937 for this fuel and it was put into wide-spread use in the RAF in March 1940 (dyed green to distinguish it from the 87 octane, which was blue).

In November 1940, UK supplies of high octane aviation fuel
were derived from three Esso refineries handling Venezuelan
oil, two in the US (25%) and one in the Caribbean (about 20%), the
Anglo-Iranian Oil refinery at Abadan (25%) and Shell
refineries in Borneo (30%).* 75% of the British supply was
non-US in origin.*

Source for above: "The History of the British Petroleum
Company" (Cambridge University Press, 1994).


----------



## Freebird (Dec 16, 2007)

Pflueger said:


> Thanks for letting me play.



Welcome to the debate...



renrich said:


> With all due respect to Mr Kenney: Probably the finest book ever written about the oil industry is by Daniel Yergin, "The Prize." It should be required reading in Washington, if anyone there can read. Regarding the Battle of the Atlantic, *" the Battle of the Atlantic became even more dangerous in the second half of 1942."*


 True, because it was only by the fall/winter of 1942 that the US put convoys in place on most routes in US waters. The crisis arose because of the huge losses throughout the year, compounding every month.


> This was well after the US was in the war. " In mid December,(1942) Churchill was told there was only about 2-months supply of fuel oil for ships in Britain." "By the spring of 1943, British oil stocks were at their lowest levels yet." "In March, the U-boats sank 108 ships." These quotes are to point out that these low points were well after the US entered the war. *The Battle of the Atlantic could not have been won if the US had not been in the war.*



*Yes, it could have*, the situation became extremely difficult after the Allies lost 1155 ships, over 780 of them in US waters, (almost all unescorted) during 1942 and largely because of Adm. King's refusal to order convoys or blackouts, or to allow other defensive measures. The British oil tankers were particularly hard hit because their routes from the Caribbean went through US waters where the U-boats were waiting. 


> "Almost all of the Allies' needs for 100-octane fuel had to be met by American production-almost 90 per cent of the total by 1944."


The "almost 90%" figure for "American production" is for US aircraft, but the British are supplied from an American company, Esso, (ex- Standard) *in Aruba, and other refineries in Curacao, Abadan, and also plants in the Commonwealth*. The Esso refinery had a contract to supply AvGas to the UK, and as the territory of Aruba is Dutch, not US soil, Congressianal orders do not apply. 
The British had enough capacity to supply all of its 100 octane fuel from British or Dutch refineries, by *expanding production if need be*. Also remember that in Bill's scenario the USA is completely neutral, so Japan does not feel forced to attack in 1941, delaying its entry into the war by *at least* a year. Ergo, the British Dutch oilfields are still in Allied control, producing petroleum Avgas for them (and the Japs!!! LOL)

During WWII the British ramped up production at a number of facilities in order to meet their wartime AvGas needs. They had plants at Bilingham, Heysham, Stanlow, and Thornton. The Anglo-Iranian oil refinery in Abadan, had no fewer than 4 expansions in two years to produce more high octane fuel. For history on the Bilingham
plant you can go to site:

BBC - Nation on Film - Chemicals - Index 




> The Allies consumed 7 billion barrels of oil during WW2, 6 billion of those barrels came from the US. does anyone suppose that the Allies without the US could have won the war with only 1 billion barrels of oil?


Yes easily, the majority of the 7 billion is for US Russian forces, US domestic consumption. While the UK, Canada, Australia had rationing of gasoline from early in the war, the US was not short of fuel, rationing was introduced in the summer of '42 to save rubber, not gasoline.

Rationing

Oil reserves: The Dutch British have available at least 1 billion barrels per year from all sources. (163 million tons/year or 13.5 million tons/month) *During WWII Venezuela alone could pump up to 24,000,000 barrels per month (3.9 million tons/month)* (the 2 largest Venezuelan oilfield holdings were Creole petroleum Royal Duch Shell)

Oil industry in Venezuela:

The Politics of the Global Oil ... - Google Book Search

Energy Tribune



> Most of the tankers that transported that oil across the seas were built in the US.


Most of the tankers *built during WWII* are from the USA. The UK/Dutch available shipping in 1941 is over 20 million tons, of which about 35% is oil tankers.


> Aside from weapons, food, raw materials and fighting men,


 As previously posted, the Commonwealth produces more than enough food raw materials. The USA did not sent ground troops into combat in Europe until Torch in Nov 1942. So the main question is can the UK produce enough weapons, and supply enough shipping. 

About the 7 billion barrels, this figure is the total used during the war by all the Allies, including China, Brazil, etc. and *including Russian production*, used for all puposes *including domestic!!!. *As posted previously the UK Dutch have about 6 million tons of tankers, the US entered the war with about 8 million tons of which about 3 million tons were tankers. The 6,500 mile trip from US Gulf coast - UK would take (in tanker or Liberty ship) about one month, so a tanker can make about 1 round trip in 2 months (w/load unload) The TOTAL US tonnage built was 5.4 million tons in '42, 13 million in '43 12 million in '44 Even assuming that the US built half of all ships as tankers, it could only transport 35 million tons in '42, 52 million in 1943, 88 million in 1944 52 million tons for 5 months in 1945, so the *US could ship from 1941 - 1945* 228 million tons or *1.39 billion* barrels, *ASSUMING THAT NOT ONE SINGLE SHIP WAS SUNK BY A U-BOAT.* (The UK/Dutch shipping with a larger starting tonnage could transport 1.58 billion barrels over 5.75 years) So the *Total combined Allied fleet could not even transport 3 billion barrels for the whole war*, even *WITH NO U-BOAT SINKINGS. *So obviously the 7 billion barrel figure is *NOT the amount shipped on tankers.*

The UK needed a minimum of 27 million tons of imports per year (in wartime) for all uses, including 6 million tons of food, about 6 million tons of raw materials and 15 million of fuel. The 15 million tons of fuel is 91 million barrels, or *0.526 billion barrels over 5.75 years*

Just for clarity- I am using the figure of 42 gallons per barrel and that this is the Imperial gallon (4.5 liters), not the US gallon (3.78 liters). An Imperial gallon weighs 7 - 7.2 pounds. I am also using the 2,000 pound "Short ton" not the 2,400 pound "Long ton".


----------



## Glider (Dec 16, 2007)

I admit to learing a lot from this debate, many thanks to all who are participating.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 16, 2007)

Freebird, thats some great info!


----------



## Freebird (Dec 16, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Freebird, thats some great info!





plan_D said:


> Excellent posts, Freebird. You've just thrown the idea of Britain being unable to fight the U-boats on its own out of the window. I'm sorry but anyone elses argument against Freebirds postings on the British anti-submarine war have to be abandoned...they really do.


Thanks Syscom Plan D! Just trying to burst a few myths...


renrich said:


> The Battle of the Atlantic could not have been won if the US had not been in the war. Malta could not have survived to become the launching pad for AC to sever Rommels supply lines without gasoline from the US.


 The British would just have to use the green (dyed) Persian Aruban 100 AvGas instead of the Red White Blue stuff. 


> Remember the SS Ohio? Where does one think the fuel came from to power Monty's tanks,(many of them made in the US) at El Alamein.


 *The British Commonwealth Allies would just have to use Aussie, NZ, Polish S.African troops, driving Canadian tanks (over 800 were sitting idle in England Canada) with Dutch gas delivered in Commonweath Norwegian ships, escorted through the Med by Greek destroyers the Royal Navy.* 


> It is unrealistic to believe that the Allies could have won the war in Europe without the US.


 Depends on your definition of "won". The British certainly couldn't have done "Overlord" without US help, but I don't think the Russians can be beaten by Germany after Stalingrad/Kursk 

More about shipping.

Quotes about "British Import Crisis" 

"After the US entered the war, the US and UK organized joint use of merchant shipping. *Throughout 1942 however, this collaboration was more of a burden than a help to Britain. *British warships were diverted to help protect sea lanes in the western Atlantic, and *Britain contributed heavily to American shipping services, particularly in troop ships.* Due to the lag in delivery of US built ships, delivery of supplies to Britain during 1942 in US ships were hardly more than token in character. During the same period moreover, Britain was lending her new ally ships to move US cargo to North Africa. *682,000 tons of British shipping was lent to the US between October 1942 - April 1943, or more than twice the shipping that the US supplied to Britain* for this period."

Quoted from "Global Logistics Strategy"

Richard M. Leighton, Ph.D., Historical Officer, Headquarters, US Army Service Forces. faculty, Harvard University, George Washington University, Industrial College of the Armed Forces.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just want to repeat here, *this is not meant to be dismissive or a put-down of US contributions in WWII*, without US help it is very likely that the Soviets would have rolled up all of Europe. This is just a conjectural "what if" scenario, and represents what the UK Commonwealth would have to do in the "worst case". But in reality *it took the USA 12 - 18 months to put wartime production into place make a significant contribution.* The US ship building was not able to provide ships to the British until the summer of '43, before this time it was building up replacing losses. On the Western front air war where the US would later make a big difference *the 8th air force had just over 200 bomber crews in June 1943*, but almost 1,000 by the end of the year (see tables post #580)

Syscom, you hit the nail on the head with your earlier post, by the summer of '43 when US influence was really felt, the Germans had already lost Stalingrad Kursk, I don't see how Germany could turn things around, even assuming they could have a hundred or two extra aircraft 2 or 3 extra divisions per month in the East, I think the extra forces would just get ground up. (But I'd like to see what case someone could put forward)


syscom3 said:


> One thing to ponder on about the US contribution to the war in Europe..... it wasn't untill summer of 1943 that there were enough troops and amphib ships for the US and Brits to be a factor in Italy.
> 
> *The Germans essentially lost the war in Russia at Stalingrad long before the US's power was felt*.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 16, 2007)

its a nice fantasy anyway . Have you ever talked to anybody that was in the UK during WW2 food was scarce not starvation but scarce .Ask any Canadian that was over there , then ask him if he wants some Brussell Sprouts there was almost riots with Canadian troops over the quality of food. In some units if you complained about the food it was 21 days CB. Good lord did you know the first Lanc produced in Canada the Ruhr Express which left Toronto with great fanfare got as far as Montreal where it was grounded for several days . How many 1st line combat aircraft did Canada produce not all that many
1451 Hurricanes 
1032 Mossies
400 lancasters
834 Helldivers
379 Catalinas 
The US saved the western europes ass


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 16, 2007)

Some other points:

1) Stalingrad was lost due to Hitler. 

2) No daylight heavy bombing campaign meant a lot more LW crews would be available for use in the med and Russian fronts.

3) No credible allied invasion in summer of 1944 would mean far more divisions available for use in Russia, which could blunt any red army offensives.

4) In 1943 and 1944, the US contributed a lot for convoy escorting duties. While its conceivable the commonwealth countries could handle the duties, it comes at a cost in your military potential. For instance, manning the escort carriers means you're reducing your fighter and bomber squadrons.

5) The allies used a tremendous number of personell and war material to build, equip and man the navies. Germany didn't have that problem. The more shipping the commonwealth needs, the more men you're taking away from the army.


----------



## renrich (Dec 16, 2007)

In May of 1942, gasoline rationing began on the east coast of the US. In the fall of 1942 it was instituted nation wide. The figure of 7 billion barrels of oil used by the allies and 6 billion supplied by the US was from a website of George Mason Univ. In Yergin's book on page 379, he states that America increased it's production of crude from 3.7 million barrels a day in 1940 to 4.7 million per day in 1945. He further states that between December 1941 and August 1945 the US and it's allies consumed almost 7 billion barrels of oil, of which 6 billion came from the US. That jibes nicely with the George Mason data. Obviously those numbers include the Pacific war but the oil usage in Europe must have been much greater than in the Pacific. I don't know if the 7B # includes any domestic usage. On page 383 he states that America produced almost 90 % of the total 100 octane used by the allies by 1944. On page 384 he says that in 1940 the US had a production capacity of 40,000 barrels a day of 100 octane, in 1945 the capacity was 514,000 barrels per day. Yergin is one of the world's leading authorities on world affairs and the oil industry. He is president of the Cambridge Energy Research Assoc. and has a BA from Yale and a PHD from Cambridge Univ. where he was a Marshall scholar. I believe that operation Torch took place in November, 1942, less than a year after Pearl Harbor and it was mostly American troops, AC and ships. To say that it took 12 to 18 months for the US to make a significant contribution is just plain wrong.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 16, 2007)

pbfoot, you seem to be ignoring Freebirds posts. Even without them you should realise that the British Empire out-produced Germany in aircraft so Canada's contribution in aircraft production was just more numbers to add to the gap between British and German production. 

syscom,

Stalingrad was lost solely due to Hitler's miscalculations and pride, you couldn't be more correct. But I do not see how the U.S made him anymore proud and anymore insane - is there any shred of proof that Hitler would have remained stable if there was no U.S presence? 

The RAF did maintain a daylight bombing campaign throughout the entirety of the war, let's no disregard the brave deeds made by 2 Group. These operations were minute compared to the 8th Air Force but tied down German forces nevertheless. 
You have to question whether the Germans had an accurate picture of Allied strength ... and then realise that they over-estimated it time and time again.

The disaster at Dieppe informed the Germans that Allied forces were capable of crossing the Channel. It may sound remarkable but even a complete victory at Dieppe made the Germans wary of invasion. Given the complete over-calculations of the German intelligence services it's only reasonable to suggest that Germany would not strip France to the bone. 

I think it's been proven by Freebird that the Commonwealth could obtain victory in the Battle of the Atlantic. Without U.S 'aid' in 1942 Britain may have had a larger advantage by 1944 ... but that's just a theory. In any case, smaller numbers in the airforce wouldn't mean certain defeat given the fact that by 1943 the Soviets had been wearing down the German forces for some time. 

On the shipping for 'Overlord' ; 79% was British and Canadian , 16.5% was American.

reinrich,

Given that Nov. 1942 is 11 months after Pearl Harbour and that 'Torch' was not a solely American affair, and that it had no affect on the North African campaign until some way in ... it's safe to say 12 - 18 months.


----------



## renrich (Dec 16, 2007)

To back up PB's post, I had an English History teacher in high school in 1950-52 who was in Britain during the war and he stated that food was scarce, especially meat. He told us what the weekly ration was but I don't remember what it was other that it would not feed me for one day. Without US ships and supplies the U boats would have starved Britain I believe. I have also read a number of books by John Keegan and wonder what his take on this subject would be. I think I know.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 16, 2007)

The British rationing led no one to starvation; my father still has his rationing book from when he was a child and I'm sure that English teacher of yours would have had his. If the British ration for the day would not be enough to feed you it says a lot about your eating habits, but seriously it was scare but it was enough to feed a nation.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 16, 2007)

I realize what freebird is trying to say but it is fundementally flawed without oil from the US there would have been no BCATP which supplied the bulk of aircrew to fly the aircraft. We had very limited oil resources prior to 46 so all our fuel was from the US was there enough shipping to supply us with oil as well . Yes the Uk outproduced Germany for combat aircraft but they didn't have to worry about trainers as the majority were made in North America. All the machine tools used to make the tanks and transportation that he espouses was from the US . Machine tools, abrasives , specialty steels , forgings, plastics , the list is endless . Without the US the only use of Canadian industry was canned food


----------



## Freebird (Dec 16, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Some other points:
> 
> 1) Stalingrad was lost due to Hitler.



Mostly yes, the German army OKW were surprised that the Russians had such a large reserve, but Hitlers stubborness in refusing to allow retreats sealed their fate.


Syscom said:


> 2) No daylight heavy bombing campaign meant a lot more LW crews would be available for use in the med and Russian fronts.



Syscom, I agree with you the Russians would have more LW to deal with, but I think by 1943 they are producing enough aircraft to deal with it. In July 1943 the Germans had 7,080 combat aircraft, with 1,784 fighters. They had about 600 fighters in each of the 3 theaters (Med, the West, Russia), plus about 1,700 other aircraft in each theater. The attrition rate in the summer of 1943 became huge for the Germans, from July - Aug 1943 they lost about 1,000 aircraft in the Med, 1,000 in W Europe, and 1,150 in Russia. Worse yet they lost 1,313 fighters out of 1,784 during the 2 months. Remember that the LW could not withdraw ALL its aircraft from France/Germany, as otherwise the British would start daylight bombing as well. But I think the Germans could send maybe 250 of their fighters from France to the East, and perhaps the same frome the Med in the summer of 1943. But considering that they were losing something like 300 - 400 per month on the Eastern front makes you wonder how much good it would do.

Read the article on "Luftwaffe attrition" and see what you think

Attrition and the Luetwaffe



Syscom said:


> 3) No credible allied invasion in summer of 1944 would mean far more divisions available for use in Russia, which could blunt any red army offensives.



Yes there would be more divisions, but do you think it would make a difference? The Germans have about 45 divisions in the West, + 12 in Norway. They would have to leave at least 25 - 30 to defend France, because by 1943 most of the German divisions are static, not mobile (lack of fuel) and they can't predict where the Allies would land. also remember that Hitler is worried that a British landing in France even if small, would spark revolts resistance among the French population. So do you think that 15 - 20 infantry divisions will make a huge difference in the East? The Germans would not get much benefit in troops from the Med, the Germans had almost as many troops guarding the long Med coastline waiting for an attack as they did after the invasion of Italy. 


Syscom said:


> 4) In 1943 and 1944, the US contributed a lot for convoy escorting duties. While its conceivable the commonwealth countries could handle the duties, it comes at a cost in your military potential. For instance, manning the escort carriers means you're reducing your fighter and bomber squadrons.
> 
> 5) The allies used a tremendous number of personell and war material to build, equip and man the navies. Germany didn't have that problem. The more shipping the commonwealth needs, the more men you're taking away from the army.



Yes true, but the huge losses of 1942 set the Allies back by about a year or more. Without Adm. King directing Naval policy in the Western Atlantic, the shipping navy situation would be quite different


----------



## Freebird (Dec 16, 2007)

plan_D said:


> The British rationing led no one to starvation; my father still has his rationing book from when he was a child and I'm sure that English teacher of yours would have had his. If the British ration for the day would not be enough to feed you it says a lot about your eating habits, but seriously it was scare but it was enough to feed a nation.



3 of my 4 grandparents were born in the UK, and I have relatives there. They remember the workers taking away all of the iron railings for the war effort!
Yes, PB is right the food situation was serious from summer '42 - summer '43, but this was largely due to poor manegement of shipping, the losses during the "Happy time" came back to bite the Allies during the winter of 42/43


----------



## renrich (Dec 16, 2007)

Another point in the Battle of the Atlantic is that shortly after the US entered the war, in early 1942, Doenitz shifted his U boats to the Carribbean to disrupt the shipping there and cut the US off from food and raw material coming from South America. That took a lot of pressure off of the north atlantic routes which were vital to Britain.


----------



## renrich (Dec 16, 2007)

It is true that few people in Britain starved but that was with all the food shipped from the US. Without that food form my country, how would they have fared?


----------



## renrich (Dec 16, 2007)

As to my eating habits, I was typical for an American youth. Couldn't seem to get enough meat. There were no fast food places, I had no money and coming from a family with a modest income we were adequately fed but nothing like the caloric intake today. It was a different world in the 40s and 50s, very unlike today. One saw almost no obesity. The teacher was an English History teacher. I took two semesters of English History and loved it.


----------



## renrich (Dec 16, 2007)

To say that the US made no significant contribution in the ETO for 12 to 18 months and to ignore the impact of Torch seems ludicrous to me.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 16, 2007)

renrich said:


> It is true that few people in Britain starved but that was with all the food shipped from the US. Without that food form my country, how would they have fared?


Food from the US wouldn't have made much difference the US is not the only country that can farm .I think machine tools and abrasives and general commodities of war like contruction materials would make the difference . Without machine tools or abrasives you haven't got a militaryhere is aqoute from a machinist in Derby UK
".....These are, or were, complicated mechanical computers for the fuse setting and firing of anti-aircraft munitions using a computed range and height assessment of enemy planes. How efficient they were I don’t know but they required many man-hours to make and build and it seemed a long time before output was visible. This was understandable for when I started staff and machines were few in number. As the weeks went by machine tools from America arrived, tools I had never heard of like rotary, centre-less and internal grinders, surface and snow ploughs. In other departments they had lathes, gear cutters, drills of all sizes and lots of milling machines. As manufacturing facilities increased so did the number of people employed, including female operators. To oversee production the hierarchy was seconded from Vickers factory in Crayford, Kent. I believe all the managing staff were Vickers personnel. "


----------



## Freebird (Dec 16, 2007)

renrich said:


> In May of 1942, gasoline rationing began on the east coast of the US. In the fall of 1942 it was instituted nation wide. The figure of 7 billion barrels of oil used by the allies and 6 billion supplied by the US was from a website of George Mason Univ. In Yergin's book on page 379, he states that America increased it's production of crude from 3.7 million barrels a day in 1940 to 4.7 million per day in 1945. He further states that between December 1941 and August 1945 the US and it's allies consumed almost 7 billion barrels of oil, of which 6 billion came from the US.



*Yes but as I have said, this is domestic consumption, Russian production, s. American etc. etc*. The Allies only had enough sea tansport capacity to supply about 1.8 - 2 billion barrels during the war, of which at least half was used by the USA. So 1 billion barrels is more than enough to supply Commonwealth needs. 

Remember also that US production was forced to compensate for the loss of the Borneo/E. Indies wells refineries, after the *Japanese went to war against the Dutch because of the sanctions led by the USA,* if the USA had not promised to support the Dutch in the Pacific, there is no way they would pick a fight with the Japanese.


> That jibes nicely with the George Mason data. Obviously those numbers include the Pacific war but the oil usage in Europe must have been much greater than in the Pacific.
> 
> Not necessarily, the over half use of oil was for ships, of which there was as much use in the Pacific as the Atlantic. In the ETO ships would often stay in port waiting for action (ie Scapa, Trondheim, Kiel, Italy etc), while the Pacific was more of a mobile affair.
> 
> I don't know if the 7B # includes any domestic usage.



Yes Renrich, it must. The Allies could only transport about 1.8 - 2 Billion barrels (maximum) of oil by ship, and part of this usage was for domestic use in UK, Canada Australia etc. So 5 Billion barrels was produced and used *without being shipped over water* by oil producing Allied countries in the war. (ie USA, USSR, China, Brazil, Mexico, Venezuala, etc)



> On page 383 he states that America produced almost 90 % of the total 100 octane used by the allies by 1944. On page 384 he says that in 1940 the US had a production capacity of 40,000 barrels a day of 100 octane, in 1945 the capacity was 514,000 barrels per day.


 I am not sure how he arrives at that # perhaps is including all US owned companies production in that total, including the Esso plants in the Caribbean. 

How much AvGas did the British really need? If the British had had 
6000 fighter missions/day (2,000 aircraft 3 mission/day) @ 120 gallons per = 720,000 gal.
2,000 flights per day @ 500 gallons per (Beaufighter or Mossie) = 1,000,000 gal
1,000 flights @ 1,000 gallons = 1,000,000. 

Total would be 2,720,000 gal or 65,000 barrels per day. 

The figures I have are that the Abadan refinery had a pre-war refining capacity of 10 million tons crude per year. Thats gives about 5 million tons of gasoline (2 gal. crude yields 1 gal petrol) , 30 million barrels per year, 2.5 million barrels per month or 84,722 barrels per day. By 1944 90% of that production was high octane fuel.

The History of the British Petroleum ... - Google Book Search


> Yergin is one of the world's leading authorities on world affairs and the oil industry. He is president of the Cambridge Energy Research Assoc. and has a BA from Yale and a PHD from Cambridge Univ. where he was a Marshall scholar. I believe that operation Torch took place in November, 1942, less than a year after Pearl Harbor and it was mostly American troops, AC and ships. To say that it took 12 to 18 months for the US to make a significant contribution is just plain wrong.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 16, 2007)

renrich said:


> To say that the US made no significant contribution in the ETO for 12 to 18 months and to ignore the impact of Torch seems ludicrous to me.


 Well perhaps I should have said it more correctly, it took 11 months for the US to put troops into action in the ETO, 10 - 18 months to begin deploying air other forces in a major way. Torch was important yes, but it was only 5 US divisions 1 British. The US was not able to supply significant amounts of shipping until mid '43, it they needed to build up, replace '42 losses send troops to the Pacific. The 8th air force also did not have a major impact until after spring '43.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 16, 2007)

Freebird, the USAAF 12th AF was quite active in North Africa in Nov and Dec 1942. Just read my WW2 65th anniversery threads and you would have known that. The only reason the AAF wasnt active untill then was the obvious need to secure airbases first.

In regards to the shipping for the pacific.... obviously you didnt know that the "Germany First" strategy meant that theater had priority on all navy, air force and army assetts.

True the 8th AF didnt have much impact untill summer 1943. But you ignore the efforts of the 12th and 15th AF's in the med. The AAF had quite a large sized operation going in that theater.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 16, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Freebird, the USAAF 12th AF was quite active in North Africa in Nov and Dec 1942. Just read my WW2 65th anniversery threads and you would have known that.
> 
> *Oh I have read them, very good by the way!*
> 
> ...



That was the plan, but apparently King lost his copy of the "Germany first" memo... LoL!  I think the US shipping was probably about equal in PTO ETO, simply because the huge distances travelled in the PTO meant that 3 or 4 (or more) times as much shipping was used to get a US brigade to Guadalcanal from L.A., as compared to a brigade from N.Y. to London or Casablanca. I was actually referring mainly to warships, more than half were employed in the PTO, and they used more fuel on average than the sometimes static Naval situations in ETO.



> True the 8th AF didnt have much impact untill summer 1943. But you ignore the efforts of the 12th and 15th AF's in the med. The AAF had quite a large sized operation going in that theater.



True, I certainly don't discount it, the US AAF did quite well in N. Africa in late'42 - '43. I think what I was trying to say was that from Nov 1942 - June 1943 the US went from a small impact in the ETO to a significant one. By the time the US has a big impact is the summer of 1943, by which time it's too late for the Germans to pull out a victory.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 17, 2007)

The statement refering to U.S impact for a good 12 - 18 months seems reasonable to me, especially when other people refer to British contributions in other theatres as meaningless. 

The 9th Air Force [as it became known] made a good contribution to the 8th Armys air assets, but they didn't make or break the campaign. I will gladly say they made it easier for the Commonwealth in North Africa - those Liberators ... really did do their names justice.


----------



## renrich (Dec 17, 2007)

I don't believe that this forum should be about tit for tat. I don't believe UK contributions in the theaters they operated in were meaningless but I think conclusion should be based on reality. To regard Torch in the first days of the operation as insignificant is, I say, ludicrous. If the German High Command was not immediately alarmed by Torch and did not frantically begin to alter previous planning to counter the Allies' next moves playing off Torch then that High Command would have had to be asleep. Just the psychological effect must have been substantial. No country in the history of warfare had ever managed to mount such a successful amphibious invasion from that distance, on that scale and in such a short period of time. I expect that many German commanders realised at that moment that the war was lost.


----------



## renrich (Dec 17, 2007)

By the end of 1943, Big Inch was carrying one-half of all the crude oil moving to the east coast. By the end of 1944 Big Inch and Little Inch were carrying 42 % of all oil which included refined product. This obviously has an impact on the amount of oil carried by sea borne transport.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 17, 2007)

renrich said:


> I don't believe that this forum should be about tit for tat. I don't believe UK contributions in the theaters they operated in were meaningless but I think conclusion should be based on reality. To regard Torch in the first days of the operation as insignificant is, I say, ludicrous. If the German High Command was not immediately alarmed by Torch and did not frantically begin to alter previous planning to counter the Allies' next moves playing off Torch then that High Command would have had to be asleep. Just the psychological effect must have been substantial. No country in the history of warfare had ever managed to mount such a successful amphibious invasion from that distance, on that scale and in such a short period of time. I expect that many German commanders realised at that moment that the war was lost.



*Nobody is trying to say that Torch was insignificant!* What I meant originally was that the USA took *about* a year to year&half to ramp up for war. Or more exactly 11 - 18 months. In Jan 42 the USA only had about 2 divisions available. By the end (Nov) they could put about a half dozen into Torch, although some of the new divisions were inexperienced. The industrial capacity was really felt after mid 43, although they were still in the process of raising training more troops.


----------



## renrich (Dec 17, 2007)

Was Dorsetshire sunk in the Indian Ocean by Japanese air along with Cornwall? I always liked the looks of the County class cruisers.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 17, 2007)

I still want to know how the the Brits and others are going to compete with the Germans without US machine tools


----------



## Freebird (Dec 17, 2007)

Pb I'm having a hard time finding information about machinery tools etc. Not as exciting as tanks planes so not much info given!  LOL! Do you have any data on that? From my understanding the US couldn't spare much until mid '43 because of the enormous industrial build up in the USA, tools, machinery all kinds of things are in short supply in the US, not surprising when you consider that tank aircraft production went up about 8 or 10 times and shipbuilding went up 20 times! 

There is no question that the productivity of the UK Commonwealth would go down without US supplies, etc. The question is how much less, and how would they have to adjust. 

For example, about aircraft engines, in Canada there were only two engine manufacturers, Pratt Witney Canada made various makes of "Wasp's", in Montreal, another plant was located in Hamilton/St. Catherine. P&W Canada assembled Wasps from kits made in the USA, in '42 they started producing Wasp 1340's entirely. This plant others would have to start making engines for the war effort (yes, I know it would take some time to get up to speed!!) with some technical assistance from UK advisors. If there is a shortage of Merlins (without Packard's production) it would mean that Spitfires, Mosquito's, Hurricanes would get the priority for Merlins, the Lancasters would have to be built as BII versions with radial engines if a shortage of in line's develops. (Perhaps later versions could use a Double Wasp?)


Renrich - Yes Dorsetshire went down with the Cornwall. The Dorsetshire Hermes had left Ceylon to avoid the Japanese strike, but Dorsetshire was sent back with Cornwall for repairs in drydock, then turned around again on the 4th. the 2 ships then set out again for Maldives before being spotted 200 miles from Ceylon, sunk by Japanese bombers. Hermes was sent back to recover her aircraft, but before she could pick them up she was also sunk


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 17, 2007)

PW in St Kitts or Hamilton thats news to me . I'm positive no aircraft engines were made in St Catharines or the Niagara region, now in Niagara New York you had Allison , Bell and Curtiss


----------



## Freebird (Dec 17, 2007)

No P&W were only in Montreal, from 1928, they had a fairly established operation, they must have been, because the Wasps were also sent to US customers. 

I found the information about aircraft engine parts made in Hamilton, St Catherine Toronto. Do you know if Avro made engines before the war? (for the Tiger Moth etc) or was it only later that they made Orenda engines?

The point I guess is that because of the huge US production, and existing facilities, it was just easiest to produce there. If the US "Neutrality" laws came back into effect, more facilities would have to be made in Canada.
Since the US was still recovering from slow economic times, many US companies were short of work. (eg. Kindelburger approching the British to sell his aircraft) I'm sure that some of the companies workers that made aircraft in the US would be happy to get the business, even if it meant manufacturing in Canada. (as opposed to laying off your workers) Kind of a brain/skilled worker drain going to Canada. (the opposite of the drain to the US from the Avro Arrow program after cancellation!) You haven't seen the lost "Arrow" floating down from lake Erie have you? LOL


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 17, 2007)

You don't just open a precision shop you need furnaces for tempering and heat treating lathes of all types and large sizes , milling machines , grinders etc casting metal is a skill plus all the associated trades and I'm quite sure the Brits had none to spare and the Germans weren't selling the US was by far the largest manufacturer of these critical types of machines .


----------



## renrich (Dec 18, 2007)

Freebird, I am enjoying your photos of Dorsetshire. The County class were a little old fashioned looking and their main batteries were rather insignificant appearing but they were pretty successful cruisers. I am not sure but the 8 inchers in 4 twin mounts might have been more useful than the standard US arrangement of 9- 8 inchers in 3 triple mounts. The high freeboard of the County class stood them in good stead in the Atlantic. One of my uncles was in Chicago at Savo Island when Canberra, a County class was one of the cruisers sunk. The story was(may not have been accurate) that Chicago did not go to the aid of Canberra so when Chicago docked in Brisbane he said that the Aussies shunned them.


----------



## Derfman (Dec 19, 2007)

Did the U.S. Save Western Europe from Nazi or Soviet domination?

yes.

Did the U.S. do it alone?

no.

Is there a conflict, or even suggested conflict between the two above statements?

no.

Its a cold hard fact that without the U.S., it either would have been a surviving, perhaps even victorious Nazi Germany, or Soviet Europe or some mix of the two. You CANNOT get around this fact.

That in no way suggests, or even hints that the U.S. has been claiming we did it alone, but there sure as hell have many suggestions that we are incompetent civilain butchering thugs that somehow accident ourselves into undeserved victories (have not seen such crap here, but its around, and I know you've all seen it. Ward Churchill is only the tip of an ugly iceburg.) (if you detect some resentment, there is a reason....)

God help me, there are days I yearn for isolationism.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 19, 2007)

Derfman, I think all of the dutch people with any historical sense are very grateful to your country for the role it played in WWII. I totally agree with your two statements. We also owe a lot of gratatude to the Commonwealth (with a special mention of the Canadians in our case) and other allied soldiers who fought for our freedom. Still it was only half a victory as only half of europe was liberated, the rest suffered under another dictatorship, being the USSR. We must not forget that. I think most people here have problems about the way the question was asked in this thread is it _suggest_ that US did it alone. Syscom didn't really mean that, but it provoked a lot of people nonetheless.
Must say it did develope in quite an interesting discusion in the end.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 19, 2007)

Marcel said:


> Derfman, I think all of the dutch people with any historical sense are very grateful to your country for the role it played in WWII. I totally agree with your two statements. We also owe a lot of gratatude to the Commonwealth (with a special mention of the Canadians in our case) and other allied soldiers who fought for our freedom. Still it was only half a victory as only half of europe was liberated, the rest suffered under another dictatorship, being the USSR. We must not forget that. I think most people here have problems about the way the question was asked in this thread is it _suggest_ that US did it alone. Syscom didn't really mean that, but it provoked a lot of people nonetheless.
> Must say it did develope in quite an interesting discusion in the end.



Yup thats this thread in a nutshell.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 19, 2007)

Marcel said:


> .....I think most people here have problems about the way the question was asked in this thread is it _suggest_ that US did it alone. Syscom didn't really mean that, but it provoked a lot of people nonetheless.
> Must say it did develope in quite an interesting discusion in the end.



I never claimed the US could have beat the Nazi's alone. Anyone who claims otherwise is suggested to reread all of the posts.

If people have thin skin about it, they shouldnt be debating things in forums.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 19, 2007)

Syscom I didn't say that you claimed that, only that the title of the thread is a little suggestive one and could be understood like that. People tend to get angry about statements like that, so that's what happens in this thread as there are some Americans who are arrogant enough to think that way. I'm not saying anyone on the forum is like that, although we have a quickly banned nutty guy even now and then


----------



## 'Lil'tyger (Dec 19, 2007)

THE ALLIES HAD TO WORK TOGETHER BRITIAN&RUSSIA NEEDED THE U.S.A THE U.S.A NEEDED BRITIAN&RUSSIA


----------



## Marcel (Dec 19, 2007)

Exactly Tyger.

PS
Suggestion, pres you CAPSlock, you're typing all in upper case


----------



## renrich (Dec 19, 2007)

I agree with most of the above statements. Without the US entry and efforts in the war, I believe Nazi Germany could have and probably would have prevailed with possibly a negotiated peace with the UK. If Germany had knocked out and invaded Britain, before the US got in, the US probably could not have kept Hitler from dominating Europe, short of using the A bomb much later and there probably would have been some accomodation between the US and Germany before then. That would make for an interesting scenario to debate as to the outcome if Germany had successfully invaded Britain in 1940.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 19, 2007)

Marcel said:


> Syscom I didn't say that you claimed that, only that the title of the thread is a little suggestive one and could be understood like that. People tend to get angry about statements like that, so that's what happens in this thread as there are some Americans who are arrogant enough to think that way. I'm not saying anyone on the forum is like that, although we have a quickly banned nutty guy even now and then



Its factual and accurate. So why are people getting angry? Is it because they never have really thought about the difficulties the allies had in the war?

Maybe dwell on the cool stuff like military might and not on the boring stuff like logistics and industrial capacity?


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 19, 2007)

'Lil'tyger said:


> THE ALLIES HAD TO WORK TOGETHER BRITIAN&RUSSIA NEEDED THE U.S.A THE U.S.A NEEDED BRITIAN&RUSSIA



Stick to the subject. If the US had stayed out of the fight in Europe, who would have won? Germany or Russia?


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 19, 2007)

I still say it would of been a long drawn out war between Commonwealth, Russia and Axis. The war would of ended with very different borders then we have today and there would of been no clear winner. (Keeping in mind Japan would of ended up in a war with USA at some time after 41)


----------



## Freebird (Dec 19, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Its factual and accurate. So why are people getting angry? Is it because they never have really thought about the difficulties the allies had in the war?
> 
> Maybe dwell on the cool stuff like military might and not on the boring stuff like logistics and industrial capacity?



Yes perhaps! And when you talk about industrial capacity logistics don't forget shipping, shipping SHIPPING!  

There are quite a few newcomers to this thread, and it's quite a long 600+! posts, so perhaps we can fill you in. Syscom, Drgondog I were kicking around this idea of neutrality for the US. (with contributions from Plan D, PbFoot, Glider, Renrich others)

*I don't think Syscom was trying to offend anyone*, it wasn't like "USA won the war" or *"we saved your @ss!". *The question (posed by Drgondog) was if Roosevelt had lost in 1940, and a strict isolationist had come into office, and passed "Neutrality Laws" could Britain survive. (ie. no wapons, fuel or any assistance from USA after Jan 1941)

I am putting forward the position that they can compensate for the US neutrality until mid 1943, some others disagree. 

Note: *I am not claiming that the British can invade France, and also that the most likely outcome of this scenario is that the Russians will take all of Europe*

So anyone that says that the US prevented western Europe from Soviet/Nazi control is correct. 

There are 2 basic assumptions that are made here, *if anybody would like to disagree with them, I would be most interested to hear why.*

#1. If the UK is neutral or has been invaded by Germany in 1940, the Russians have a very slim (if any) chance of resisting the German invasion. (Germany uses its FULL air power against Russia, 40+ more divisions from the west are available for "Barbarossa", invasion launched 3 months earlier, no lend-lease or aid of any kind.)

#2. If the UK can supply roughly the same amount of aid keep the same # of German forces tied up until "Stalingrad", 75 - 80% until Kursk, and only 50 - 60 % after that, it will be still be TOO LATE for Germany to turn things around, by mid 1943 the Russians are too strong to be stopped.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 19, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> I still say it would of been a long drawn out war between Commonwealth, Russia and Axis. The war would of ended with very different borders then we have today and there would of been no clear winner. (Keeping in mind Japan would of ended up in a war with USA at some time after 41)



I think you are right Hunter, if the UK are able to survive and keep Russia in the war, the most likely outcome is that Russia defeats Germany. (possibly the UK is able to prevent France from Commie control, maybe not) The Soviets end up occuping Germany, and facing the UK across the channel. On the east front Japan is able to digest all of China, and there is another uneasy hostile truce in the east between Japan USSR.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 20, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Its factual and accurate. So why are people getting angry? Is it because they never have really thought about the difficulties the allies had in the war?



No Sys, it's the words you used to write the title. It sounds like the stereotypical American with their America is biggest, best, gods gift to man etc. 
I don't believe you were not aware of that when you were writing this question. You wanted to provoke.
But the thread turned into a fine one, so no harm done and as you say, everybody should have a thick skin here.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 20, 2007)

I don't think the Soviet Union would have dominated Europe if they defeated Germany. Without U.S aid the Wehrmacht and Red Army would batter themselves into the ground - think how many more people would have died without U.S aid and help; most of it too would have been on the Eastern Front. 

Personally, I think if the war had continued (which it would have) then the German and Russian nations would have bled themselves white battling it out. Once Great Britain had secured the ocean from Germany [as Freebird has proven possible] then it would have been in a position to begin invading Europe... as I said before we had the vessels for an invasion; 79% of the vessels used in Overlord were British.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 23, 2007)

freebird said:


> I think you are right Hunter, if the UK are able to survive and keep Russia in the war, the most likely outcome is that Russia defeats Germany. (possibly the UK is able to prevent France from Commie control, maybe not) The Soviets end up occuping Germany, and facing the UK across the channel. On the east front Japan is able to digest all of China, and there is another uneasy hostile truce in the east between Japan USSR.



Agreed, I think it would of ended very much like what we both have said.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 25, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I still want to know how the the Brits and others are going to compete with the Germans without US machine tools



Pb, after the isolationists win the 1940 election the US companies would lose about 80% of their orders, so they would have about 2 months to decide if they would rather open plants in Canada or close down manufacturing facilities and lay off staff. (and face bankrupcy) I think shifting production to Canada is probably what is most likely to occur. They would have to ship tools, machinery parts within the 2 month "window", after that no parts from the US, (but workers could cross the border)

According to the scenario, Roosevelt loses the Nov 1940 election to an ardent isolationist, who will re-impose the neutrality laws as soon as he (and the new congress) are sworn in in Jan 1941. Any weapons, machinery, engines or raw materials (including oil) not exported by inaugeration day are subject to embargo. 



Glider said:


> One consequence of your scenario has struck me which you may want to chew over.
> If the USA isn't giving any assistance to the UK then your aeroplane, weapons and naval shipyards wouldn't have been built up during the period 1939-1941.
> It was the orders from the UK and France that financed the expansion of America's military infrastructure. Your ability to arm yourselves wouldn't have been nearly as well developed, leaving the USA in a very difficult position when attacked by Japan.
> 
> The British and French orders are important to the build up of the US infrastructure. US aircraft orders were small by European standards which is understandable but advanced designs were being progressed. The production facilities were built up on the back of the European orders. Financially the US manufactures were in trouble when France fell. {Martin} and Douglas in particular were in serious danger of collapse, they had invested huge sums in the creation of the factories but with France gone, there was no money coming in to pay for them. This was a key factor in the UK's decision to take on all the French orders, even if they were aircraft such as the Martin Maryland, that we originally had no interest in.



Something to consider here, in 1940 the US made 6,028 aircraft, in 1941 19,445. Only 20% of these aircraft were ordered and used by the USA, mainly because Congress did not wish to spend large sums on defence. The USAAF (Air corps) consisted of 2,500 aircraft on Sept 1 1939, with another 2,400 in Navy service. By Dec 7 1941 there were 6,311 aircraft available, of which 3,305 were in the USAAF, and about 1,200 of the 6,311 were built during 1936 -1939 (P-35, P-36, F2A, TBD,) Even with Roosevelt pushing the expansion of the Armed forces, the Air forces only increased by 1,400. The "Isolationists" who opposed Roosevelt also opposed increased military spending, they felt that it wasn't needed by the US, as long as they stayed out of "foreign entanglements"

*On Nov 5 1940 the US aircraft engine manufacturers would be faced with a cancellation of over 16,000 aircraft 20,000 engines, about 80% of their 1941 production*. Do you really think that they would refuse an offer to move some of their production to Canada? Or would Kindelburger, Douglas, Martin other aircraft makers close shop flip burgers at the local Cafe? As Glider points out they have invested huge sums of money, without selling all these aircraft they face bankrupcy. 

Curtiss Grumman might survive with their US orders, but what about the others? In the fall of 1940 Martin had delivered about 275 Marylands, and had orders for 550 more, plus the British purchasing commision was looking for about 2,500 more light/Medium bombers in '41-'42. At the same time they had a US order for 201 B-26's but it would not go into production until mid '41. Douglas had orders for 144 SBD "Dauntless" 63 "Bostons", but over 1,000 of the Bostons were on order from Britain. 

The Engine maker Pratt Whitney already has a plant in Canada, so unless the other manufacturers (Allison, Wright) want to lose orders for 16,000 or so engines to P&W, they would be invited to manufacture north of the border too.

Remember that the "Neutrality Laws" do not forbid the IMPORT of aircraft, only the export. So if Douglas (for example) made the Bostons north of the border, they could export the smaller US order back into the US.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 25, 2007)

Freebird, in 1939, 1940 and 1941, the US began a series of military buildups. The navy was first with several fiscal authorizations to build and supply a massive "two ocean navy"

In 1941, both the Army and Air Corps received an ever increasing number of funds to expand.

Your scenario doesnt make sense as it never occured in the first place, namely what actually did happen prior to Dec 7th 1941.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 26, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Freebird, in 1939, 1940 and 1941, the US began a series of military buildups. The navy was first with several fiscal authorizations to build and supply a massive "two ocean navy"
> 
> In 1941, both the Army and Air Corps received an ever increasing number of funds to expand.



Yes Syscom, but the buildup was pushed by Roosevelt his Congressional allies *over the objections of the isolationists* who didn't want to spend the money. The congress was sharply divided on the question, in 1941 the bill allowing the continuation of the army buildup by the extention of the "Selective Service Act" was passed by *one vote.* The authorization for the Air Corps to buy 582 P-40 fighters for $12 million was similarly opposed as "overly extravagent excessive" The state of the US military in the fall of 1940 is described by D. Eisenhower as "almost complete military weakness" and the US having "pitifully inadequate defences" {Eisenhower - Crusade in Europe ch 1 pg. 2} The isolationists did not see a great need to change this, as they felt that the US was safe in it's own hemisphere and would not be involved in war in the near future.

Even if the bills to expand the Navy Air Corps in 1941 were passed by Congress, they would be vetoed by the isolationist President. Why would you need an expanded 2 ocean navy if your whole platform was to stay out of wars? The whole point of the buildup is that Roosevelt (supported by his extremely able Army chief Marshall) forsaw that the US could not stay out of the war. *The navy air force buildup was needed to support Roosevelt's policies such as opposing Japanese aggression and patrolling the western Atlantic for U-boats, both of which would be cancelled after Jan 1941.* The polititians opposing Roosevelt voted against the buildup as they thought it would increase the chance for the US to get into the war. Remember that in Bill's scenario there is no US-German or US-Japan tension as the new isolationist President is also willing to allow Japan to have it's way in the far east. 


Syscom said:


> Your scenario doesnt make sense as it never occured in the first place, namely what actually did happen prior to Dec 7th 1941.



Syscom, I'm just postulating on Bill's hypothetical scenario, if Roosevelt had lost the 1940 election to the "America First" isolationist gang. The buildup was pushed by Roosevelt Marshall over the OPPOSITION of the "isolationist" group, who were against increased military funding. If Pearl Harbour had not happened (ie. US still neutral) then the huge US military buildup would not happen in 1942. *In 1941, even with Roosevelt pushing a massively expanded military buildup * the US still aquired *only 20% of the 19,445 aircraft* built in the USA. In the fall of 1940, with the aircraft companies looking forward to losing 80% of next year's sales by being prevented from selling to the UK, they have to make plans to salvage their business. They can't wait until Nov 44 for a new President. *You can't logically put forward a scenario in which the US government is isolationist to save money avoid war and then say that they would support a buildup bigger than Roosevelt's.*


----------



## Rich46yo (Dec 28, 2007)

Ive always shied away from saying the "USA saved" anyone. To do so, I believe, undermines the sacrifices made by our allies in the war. I will say this however, that without the US entering the war it would be a vastly different Europe today.

I dont believe Britain would have been able to dislodge the Germans from the mainland. The Normandy landings alone deployed about an equal amount of Yank and Commonwealth troops and its hard to imagine the British going it alone. In manpower, naval hulls, aircraft deployed...ect

Would the Brits gamble so many eggs in their basket for mainland Europe? I dont believe so.

Instead I believe they would have adhered to a military policy of containment much as we did in later years with the Soviet Union. If anything they probably would have risked amphib OPs in places like Norway, the Med., or North Africa, where they would have been in more a position of strength. More so at least compared to taking on the Nazi war machine on the Euro mainland.

Fascinating isnt it? The twists and turns History takes while on the heels of fate.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 28, 2007)

freebird said:


> Yes Syscom, but the buildup was pushed by Roosevelt his Congressional allies *over the objections of the isolationists* who didn't want to spend the money. The congress was sharply divided on the question, in 1941 the bill allowing the continuation of the army buildup by the extention of the "Selective Service Act" was passed by *one vote.* The authorization for the Air Corps to buy 582 P-40 fighters for $12 million was similarly opposed as "overly extravagent excessive" The state of the US military in the fall of 1940 is described by D. Eisenhower as "almost complete military weakness" and the US having "pitifully inadequate defences" {Eisenhower - Crusade in Europe ch 1 pg. 2} The isolationists did not see a great need to change this, as they felt that the US was safe in it's own hemisphere and would not be involved in war in the near future.[/quote
> 
> But in the end, money was authorized. It didnt matter if it was by one vote, because the majority was for rearming.
> 
> ...


----------



## Freebird (Dec 28, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> But in the end, money was authorized. It didnt matter if it was by one vote, because the majority was for rearming.


Partly because they were pushed by the President.

My point is that the Re-armament bill was opposed by the Isolationists, if they won the election in 1940 on that policy, they couldn't turn around and propose a buildup 4 or 5 times as big as Roosevelts. If the president does not sign the bill for buildup, it does not happen (not veto-proof). Even with Roosevelt pushing a big build-up, the US government only authorized the Air Corps/Navy to get about 2,500 aircraft per year in 1940 1941. *The aircraft companies are still faced with losing over 16,000 aircraft orders for 1941.*



Syscom said:


> Because many people saw that military weakness was futile in the face of three hostile powers. You can rearm AND still stay neutral.



It makes sense to you and me, but *The Isolationists did not see it that way, they the general public were opposed to spending vast amounts of money on re-armament.* The problem with your logic is that the "3 powers" would not be hostile, because the US would not be involved in affairs outside the Western Hemisphere.


> *This is my thread and scenario*. There is no doubt that the Japanese WOULD attack the US at Hawaii and the Philipines as planned, due to the military necessities of securing the sea's and the flanks of their empire.



*Not trying to hi-jack your thread*,  I was just responding to Bill's question about strict neutrality. If the US brought back the Neutrality laws, it would (as Glider pointed out) either force the aircraft makers to re-locate, or some would go bankrupt. 

Are you suggesting that the US still embargo's oil steel to Japan but does not enter a European war? Japan did *NOT* attack the US to secure their flanks, it was *ONLY* because of the crippling embargos that they attacked in 1941, the Japanese army would otherwise have preferred to concentrate on China or Japan. 

*So what exactly is your scenario?* The US is neutral? Is it that the US will concentrate on the Pacific, not entering a European war?

Is the USA embargoing oil to Japan? Is the 1940 policy "Cash Carry"? And at what point in time does the US policy change?


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 28, 2007)

The scenario is for the US and Germany to NOT declare war on each other after the Pearl Harbor attack. It was Germany that declared war first, and if they hadnt, it was quite plausable the US would not have intervened to any high degree, the war in Europe.

and:

1) Japan was going to attack the US one way or another, isolationist or no isolationist president. They had to destroy the Pacific fleet at hawaii and secure the sea lanes in SE Asia by removing the US from the PI. Both had to happen and no scenario can ignore that, unless you go really far off topic.

2) It doesnt matter how FDR convinced conrgress to pass his rearming programs, just the fact he did. You place too much emphysis on the isolationists after the outbreak of the war. Once the bombs dropped on Pearl, they changed their tune in a hurry. The only change to my scenario if the buildup hadnt occured, would be the USN delaying their Pacific offensives by a year or so.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 28, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> The scenario is for the US and Germany to NOT declare war on each other after the Pearl Harbor attack. It was Germany that declared war first, and if they hadnt, it was quite plausable the US would not have intervened to any high degree, the war in Europe.
> 
> and:
> 
> ...



Sorry, there was a misunderstanding, I was replying to Drgondog's scenario *IF* an isolationist had taken over after the 1940 election which would have changed everything.

Your scenario is quite different. So let me ask you...

US Policy is "Cash Carry" but no lend-lease, correct?

Does the US guarantee Dutch possessions in the far east? (ie East Indies, in return for the Dutch refusing to sell oil to Japan) 

What would the US policy re U-boats be?


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 28, 2007)

> US Policy is "Cash Carry" but no lend-lease, correct?



There would be a good ammount of outright aid given to the Commonwealth simply because Hitler WAS the biggest threat. It wouldnt have been unlimited, but it sure would have been plenty. Not enought to make a difference for an invasion of France though.



> Does the US guarantee Dutch possessions in the far east? (ie East Indies, in return for the Dutch refusing to sell oil to Japan)



Things unfold in Asia just as they did in real life. 



> What would the US policy re U-boats be?



A semi-belligerent condition existed prior to Pearl harbor, and it would be even more belligerent afterwards. My estimation is the US would declare the western Atlantic and the Gulf as a "nazi free zone" and tell germany that their U-Boats would be attacked without arning if found in those waters.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 29, 2007)

Ok, so basically your scenario is "*Pacific first*", if Germany does not declare war on the USA. There are some interesting possibilities in this scenario then, I am assuming that you mean it would begin on Dec 8 1941, just after "Pearl Harbour", and tha attack on the Phillipines. Correct?

I do think the Allies could have done more in the Pacific, both Britain the US should have been more realistic in the "Germany first" plan, that it would take a 1 1/2 years for the US to get really geared up for war. The whole plan for "Sledgehammer" was totally unrealistic and "Bolero" was not a pressing need as the Pacific defence.


----------



## Divplaksnis (Dec 29, 2007)

I think that US save Europe because if USA would not help UK then Nazi would occupait it and then take over all Europe.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 29, 2007)

freebird said:


> I do think the Allies could have done more in the Pacific, both Britain the US should have been more realistic in the "Germany first" plan, that it would take a 1 1/2 years for the US to get really geared up for war. The whole plan for "Sledgehammer" was totally unrealistic and "Bolero" was not a pressing need as the Pacific defence.



There really want a lot more the allies could have done in the PTO and CBI even without material and men going to the ETO/MTO.

The Pacific was foremost a logistics war, and untill bases and ports could be developed, nothing was going to happen sooner


----------



## Freebird (Dec 29, 2007)

*"Pacific First"* scenario



syscom3 said:


> There really want a lot more the allies could have done in the PTO and CBI even without material and men going to the ETO/MTO.
> 
> The Pacific was foremost a logistics war, and untill bases and ports could be developed, nothing was going to happen sooner



I'm not so sure I agree... I think part of the problem was the choice to fight from the East/South East direction, meaning that the US had to take and build up bases in Samoa, Solomons, etc, which also used up the inadequate shipping. If you were to contemplate a "Pacific first" effort I think that approaching from Dutch E Indies/Burma/Australia would be more logical. I would think that with better effort the Allies could hold on to Java/Sumatra or at least make a much more determined fight, instead of letting the Japanese establish themselves. If the US had used 6 or 7 carriers in the Pacific + 2 or 3 British ones, in addition to other fleet elements, they would outnumber the Japanese. With the advantage of defensive land-based aircraft and the "Magic" decoding why could the Allies not have put up a better fight? The US was not in a much better position at "Midway" the new carriers would be another year in coming.

I think that even if the US/UK were to lose a few carriers, as long as they sunk about equal #'s of Japanese then it would be in the Allies favor, as they can out-build Japan. 

Syscom, if you were in command (Adm. King! LoL) in the "Pacific First" scenario and were given the directive "stop the Japanese advance, destroy their fleet/army/AF as soon as possible", what would your strategy be?


----------



## Freebird (Jan 3, 2008)

renrich said:


> With all due respect to Mr Kenney: Probably the finest book ever written about the oil industry is by Daniel Yergin, "The Prize." It should be required reading in Washington, if anyone there can read. Regarding the Battle of the Atlantic, " the Battle of the Atlantic became even more dangerous in the second half of 1942." This was well after the US was in the war. " In mid December,(1942) Churchill was told there was only about 2-months supply of fuel oil for ships in Britain." "By the spring of 1943, British oil stocks were at their lowest levels yet." "In March, the U-boats sank 108 ships." These quotes are to point out that these low points were well after the US entered the war. The Battle of the Atlantic could not have been won if the US had not been in the war. "Almost all of the Allies' needs for 100-octane fuel had to be met by American production-almost 90 per cent of the total by 1944." The Allies consumed 7 billion barrels of oil during WW2, 6 billion of those barrels came from the US. Most of the tankers that transported that oil across the seas were built in the US. Aside from weapons, food, raw materials and fighting men, does anyone suppose that the Allies without the US could have won the war with only 1 billion barrels of oil. Malta could not have survived to become the launching pad for AC to sever Rommels supply lines without gasoline from the US. Remember the SS Ohio? Where does one think the fuel came from to power Monty's tanks,(many of them made in the US) at El Alamein. It is unrealistic to believe that the Allies could have won the war in Europe without the US.



Renrich, the figure of 6 out of 7 million barrels is about 85%, the US did not have 85% of the world oil reserves in 1941-1945, not even half. The figure for oil consumption only refers to the "Allies" ie UK US, not Soviet. It does not include the oil used in Russia. The main reason that the US % is so high is because the US supply is the closest to Europe, and the UK US had got themselves into such a desperate shipping situation by 1943 that they did not have enough ships to make the longer "round the Cape" voyage for the Persian Gulf oil. My figures have the British "Avgas" refinery capacity at about 85,000 gal/day, but this does not include the East Indies refineries. Also part of the amount supplied to Britain was an exchange for British petroleum from Persia sent to Russia. It was not a very difficult to increase the amount of Avgas produced, the only problem was shipping. *The UK Commonwealth never had a shortage of oil or refinery capacity, it was always the amount of shipping that was the limiting factor.*

That is why I wrote earlier that the British must use the African/Arabian rail systems to move petroleum (and troops, supplies other raw materials) between the Persian Gulf, India S. Africa to the West African ports, (Lagos, Accra, Port Harcourt, Calabar, Douala, Libreville), thus cutting a 13,000 mile ship's journey to 4,500 miles, which would use only about 1/3 of the shipping on this critical route. It would also save about 2 or 3 months transit time.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 4, 2008)

> I'm not so sure I agree... I think part of the problem was the choice to fight from the East/South East direction, meaning that the US had to take and build up bases in Samoa, Solomons, etc, which also used up the inadequate shipping. If you were to contemplate a "Pacific first" effort I think that approaching from Dutch E Indies/Burma/Australia would be more logical.



That looks good on a map, but the reality is they are so far from the US and UK, it was literally "the other side of the world" when it came to a long long long supply line. It was difficult enough to supply the troops in 1944, let alone in 1942 or 1943 building up for an offensive with no aircraft carriers or airbases close to the Japanese.



> I would think that with better effort the Allies could hold on to Java/Sumatra or at least make a much more determined fight, instead of letting the Japanese establish themselves.



And just what do you think the allied forces do during those horrible 6 months at the start of the war. The allies fought with courage and determination but were steamrollered by superior Japanese strategy and tactics.



> If the US had used 6 or 7 carriers in the Pacific + 2 or 3 British ones, in addition to other fleet elements, they would outnumber the Japanese.



The US had three in the Pacific with two called in from the Atlantic, leaving only one carrier (the Wasp) available. Plus factor in at least two carriers in port at any given time due to battle damage or refit/supply. The Brits had nothing available in the real war, and would have nothing to offer in this scenario.



> With the advantage of defensive land-based aircraft and the "Magic" decoding why could the Allies not have put up a better fight? The US was not in a much better position at "Midway" the new carriers would be another year in coming.



You call Midway and Guadalcanal a less than decisive fight?



> I think that even if the US/UK were to lose a few carriers, as long as they sunk about equal #'s of Japanese then it would be in the Allies favor, as they can out-build Japan.



As it actually happened. The US lost four in 1942, added several in 1943 and another dozen in 1944. And that was for fleet carriers.



> Syscom, if you were in command (Adm. King! LoL) in the "Pacific First" scenario and were given the directive "stop the Japanese advance, destroy their fleet/army/AF as soon as possible", what would your strategy be?



1st: The sea lanes to Australia were vital and had to be defended at all cost.
2nd: Preserve the carrier forces to defend Hawaii and go on attack as an opportunity arose.
3rd: Contain the Japanese forces at Rabaul
4th: As heavy bombers become available to the AAF, begin systematically attacking the oil refineries of the NEI.

And this is how it did unfold, except for #4.


----------



## Freebird (Jan 4, 2008)

*Pacific First* scenario



syscom3 said:


> That looks good on a map, but the reality is they are so far from the US and UK, it was literally "the other side of the world" when it came to a long long long supply line. It was difficult enough to supply the troops in 1944, let alone in 1942 or 1943 building up for an offensive with no aircraft carriers or airbases close to the Japanese.



The support capacity airbases were better in Java/Malaya/India/Australia than were in Solomons/Gilberts/Marshalls


> And just what do you think the allied forces do during those horrible 6 months at the start of the war. The allies fought with courage and determination but were steamrollered by superior Japanese strategy and tactics.


Yes I don't disagree that they fought courageously, but I'm thinking more could be done with "ABDA", it should have had an American commander, not Wavell.

The Japanese only had 11 divisions available for Malaya/Java/Borneo/Philippines!


> The US had three in the Pacific with two called in from the Atlantic, leaving only one carrier (the Wasp) available. Plus factor in at least two carriers in port at any given time due to battle damage or refit/supply. *The Brits had nothing available in the real war,* and would have nothing to offer in this scenario.



*Yes the British did, they had 3 fleet carriers!!!* The HMS Formidable HMS Indomitable were both available in the Indian Ocean in early 1942, + the smaller HMS Hermes.


> You call Midway and Guadalcanal a less than decisive fight?


I was talking about the first 5 months of the war.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 4, 2008)

freebird said:


> That is why I wrote earlier that the British must use the African/Arabian rail systems to move petroleum (and troops, supplies other raw materials) between the Persian Gulf, India S. Africa to the West African ports, (Lagos, Accra, Port Harcourt, Calabar, Douala, Libreville), thus cutting a 13,000 mile ship's journey to 4,500 miles, which would use only about 1/3 of the shipping on this critical route. It would also save about 2 or 3 months transit time.


The time spent to build this railway you said would take a couple of months , just imagine the volume of shipping req'd to move the rolling stock , track , coal , turntables , maintainence spares personally I think it's a fools fantasy and it would require an effort the equal of the manhattan project . Its easy to draw lines on a map but laying track is a whole new game the Japanese had trouble putting a short track 400km in Burma yet you have plans to cross the second biggest continent in a few months


----------



## Freebird (Jan 4, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> The time spent to build this railway you said would take a couple of months , just imagine the volume of shipping req'd to move the rolling stock , track , coal , turntables , maintainence spares personally I think it's a fools fantasy and it would require an effort the equal of the manhattan project . Its easy to draw lines on a map but laying track is a whole new game the Japanese had trouble putting a short track 400km in Burma yet you have plans to cross the second biggest continent in a few months



Pb *The British already have at the beginning WWII a fully functioning standard rail system in Egypt/Palestine*, with (as of 1935) 642 locomotives; 1,579 passenger carriages 14,339 cargo wagons. (box, flat tank) There is also coal, water, yards, turntables etc as well as adequate maintainance facilities. 
In WWII coal was mined in S. Africa India

Railways In the Nile Valley

There is a similar system functioning in Nigeria, the only "missing link" is about 800 miles across central Chad (temperate savannah, not desert or jungle.) The only reason that the railway had not been built before is because it's French territory, but as of Aug 1940 is in Free french Control.

The amount of shipping that would be used to bring some construction equiptment extra rolling stock is a *small fraction of the millions of tons constantly tied up on the "round the Cape route"*

The Japanese had trouble building the railway in Burma 

1.) because it is some of the worst possible terrain to build a railway, very rugged, jungle with numerous rivers.

2.) they were short of labour (so had to use prisoners) 

3.) they did not have adequate construction materials, as it was so far from Japan and by summer 1942 when they were building the railway, Japan was in crisis (after Midway etc), almost all resources were desperatly needed for the Navy Pacific defence.

You are not going to compare Japanese construction ability to the Americans now are you?  

Moltke wrote the axiom that an army cannot operate more than 60 miles from the railway, although by WWII with trucks available that might be around 200 miles. In WWII every nation made use of railways, can you imagine the Germans maintaining their armies at Stalingrad by shipping supplies from Vienna by barge down the Danube, along the Black Sea and then up the Don river? 

The Germans captured over 22,000 miles of Russian (broad guage) railway, most of it double-tracked and a good potion of it had been destroyed. The German Army (a model of efficiency!) had planned for this and their railway engineers converted all the captured rail within 18 - 20 working months.

Deutsche Reichsbahn - The German State Railway in WWII

The US UK did in fact upgrade the rail link to Russia by late 1942, it was (finally) realized that it was far more efficient and avoided the disasterous Murmansk route.

*There is simply not enough shipping to continue the wasteful "round the Cape" route,* especially if (as in Bill's scenario) Petroleum will have to be brought from the Iraq/Persian oilfields to replace embargoed US oil.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 5, 2008)

I don't really think you understand the complexity of a railroad .So now we have to bring coal in from South Africa and India this requires ships , where the hell is the water for the steam engine coming from in the savanah it's very arid , next you'll require electricity for the signals and switching followed closely by people to run it not 1 or 2 but thousands of skilled trades that will require accomadations rations etc . I'm quite sure every port in West Africa would have to expanded to accomodate influx of shipping. I think it would be easier to build a canal


----------



## Rich46yo (Jan 5, 2008)

I believe the scenario should not take as obvious that the USA would have risked much to send meaningful supplies to the Soviets if the US wasnt directly involved in the war. There were far more commie haters in the US then Nazi haters. I dont think that should be assumed at all. Most of all with the fact that supply to the Soviets would have been more dangerous.

England is different. With the Brits we had history and alliances. I dont find it incompatible with the scenario the assumption Yank supply would have always been available to the Brits.

Another thing. Communist Ideology preached communism would eventually inherit the world. But to do that it first had to survive. And in the limitations of this scenario I would say it was very possible Stalin would have made a peace with Hitler once the Soviets achieved enough militarily to ensure survival, and, once Hitler saw that victory in the east of was impossible. Both were pragmatists after all.

Especially since Stalin considered a separate peace with Germany even with American involvement.


----------



## Glider (Jan 5, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I don't really think you understand the complexity of a railroad .So now we have to bring coal in from South Africa and India this requires ships , where the hell is the water for the steam engine coming from in the savanah it's very arid , next you'll require electricity for the signals and switching followed closely by people to run it not 1 or 2 but thousands of skilled trades that will require accomadations rations etc . I'm quite sure every port in West Africa would have to expanded to accomodate influx of shipping. I think it would be easier to build a canal



Some fair comments but I think its worth remembering that although a large number of people would be needed to make a Railroad the technology is petty easy. Plus the UK did have a lot of experience in building railroads across the empire as it was then, and would have known how to cover the issues.
A canal is a much bigger undertaking


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 5, 2008)

Glider said:


> Some fair comments but I think its worth remembering that although a large number of people would be needed to make a Railroad the technology is petty easy. Plus the UK did have a lot of experience in building railroads across the empire as it was then, and would have known how to cover the issues.
> A canal is a much bigger undertaking


trained manpower would be at a premium . Thats pretty brutal terrain . I studied the National Geographic atlas I have and its not that easy. The northern route he proposes across Chad would be brutal there are elevations up to 4000 feet and to avoid them its crossing long stetches of desert , laying track in the desert would very tough as you would have to bring in the ballast for the sleepers let alone digging it out so you have a good base. 
The railway ties would alone require a huge investment of men and equipment>
To move the track further south in Africa and your making multiple (lost count at 50) river crossings. I believe the canal would almost be as easy


----------



## Freebird (Jan 5, 2008)

*US Isolationist* scenario



pbfoot said:


> I don't really think you understand the complexity of a railroad .So now we have to bring coal in from South Africa and India this requires ships , where the hell is the water for the steam engine coming from in the savanah it's very arid , next you'll require electricity for the signals and switching followed closely by people to run it not 1 or 2 but thousands of skilled trades that will require accomadations rations etc . I'm quite sure every port in West Africa would have to expanded to accomodate influx of shipping. I think it would be easier to build a canal



actually I know quite a bit about railways, kind of a hobby. 8) In WWII coal was mined in S. Africa, India Nigeria, which had extensive fields. the coal used in the middle east was brought by ship, after the railway is completed it can come directly from Nigeria. Water would not be a problem, the sources would be Lake Chad the Nile river. The switching, maintainance and administration etc. would be run from Nigeria Egypt/Sudan which have well organized functioning systems. Yes the ports in W. Africa would have to handle a larger amount of shipping, but there are 12 suitable ports available, 5 in Nigeria, 2 in Cameroons, 2 in Gabon 3 in the Gold Coast (Togo). The red Sea ports are overloaded bringing in material for the desert army, they would have trouble handling more volume (oil) as well. 

*Remember, in this scenario the US brings back the neutrality laws in Jan 1941, which will preciptitate a huge petroleum crisis for the British.* The round trip for a tanker from the US gulf coast to the UK is 6 to 8 weeks, including loading time. The UK can use fuel from Aruba Curacao, but they cannot supply enough, some must be brought from the Persian Gulf. *The UK simply does not have enough shipping for the 4 month round-trip from the Persian Gulf. *
In late 1940, the UK ( Allies) have about 21 million tons of shipping, about 5 million tons each of oil tankers, bulk (coal, iron, bauxite, rubber, ores etc), food (grain, rice, meat etc), and general freight (used for ammunition, trucks, war supplies etc). If the UK has 2.5 million tons of ships transporting 1.5 million tons/month of oil from the Carribbean, and about 0.5 million tons transporting fuel to Australia, NZ etc, they would still need about 0.6 - 0.7 million tons/month from Iraq/Persia to arrive in Canada/UK. The UK simply does not have 3 or 4 million tons of tankers to do this! However if they had 6,000 rail tank cars on the African system they could transport 750,000 tons/month to the W. African ports, which would then only use about 1.0 million tons of shipping to transport to Liverpool or Halifax. 

The other advantage is that bulk cargo (coal/ore etc) can be loaded for shipment to the UK, and supplies to the desert army can be offloaded in the Nigerian ports, saving more shipping from going "round the cape". *Every possible way to avoid shipping by water must be used!*



renrich said:


> " the Battle of the Atlantic became even more dangerous in the second half of 1942." This was well after the US was in the war. " In mid December,(1942) Churchill was told there was only about 2-months supply of fuel oil for ships in Britain." "By the spring of 1943, British oil stocks were at their lowest levels yet." "In March, the U-boats sank 108 ships." *These quotes are to point out that these low points were well after the US entered the war*."



As Renrich points out, even with US help, the UK ran short of shipping in late 1942/early 1943, only by diverting ships from the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic were they able to cope. One of the consequences of this was that Britain was unable to ship enough food to India Bangladesh in 1943, contributing to the million+ who died from famine. *It is critical that the British get their shipping/supply lines under control right away*, or else they will end up out of gas out of food!

Bengal famine of 1943 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 5, 2008)

> ...Remember, in this scenario the US brings back the neutrality laws in Jan 1941....



I never said there was going to be any neutrality laws

Only that the US and Germany did not declare war on each other in Dec 1941.


----------



## Freebird (Jan 5, 2008)

Glider said:


> Some fair comments but I think its worth remembering that although a large number of people would be needed to make a Railroad the technology is petty easy. Plus the UK did have a lot of experience in building railroads across the empire as it was then, and would have known how to cover the issues.
> A canal is a much bigger undertaking



Exactly right Glider, the British developed railways in all the colonies, it was part of the economic development.



pbfoot said:


> trained manpower would be at a premium . Thats pretty brutal terrain . I studied the National Geographic atlas I have and its not that easy. The northern route he proposes across Chad would be brutal there are elevations up to 4000 feet and to avoid them its crossing long stetches of desert , laying track in the desert would very tough as you would have to bring in the ballast for the sleepers let alone digging it out so you have a good base.



The central route is on the elevated central plain, its high but there are no mountains, its mostly flat savannah scrubland, like "Darfur" (the railway would pass through darfur) Timber for sleepers is from Kenya, Cameroons Gold Coast. Southern Sudan has quarries for rock ballast, that's where the ballast for the Egyptian system came from.


> The railway ties would alone require a huge investment of men and equipment>
> To move the track further south in Africa and your making multiple (lost count at 50) river crossings. I believe the canal would almost be as easy



The Central route crosses only 2 major rivers, the Nile the Chari, both of which already have bridges built, otherwise there are only a few small "wadi's" (dry rivers). Anyways bridge building is not impossible! 

The manpower would only require about 5 - 10% skilled engineers surveyors to be brought from UK, Canada or S. Africa. 

The rest of the labour would be these guys below.

(Sorry, very un-PC of me, but we gotta win the war somehow!)


----------



## Freebird (Jan 5, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> I never said there was going to be any neutrality laws
> 
> Only that the US and Germany did not declare war on each other in Dec 1941.



Syscom I'm going to have to split the thread I think, I'm answering questions on two different scenario's, 1.) Bill's "Isolationist" scenario 2.) your "Pacific First" scenario. 

In any event I think it would be prudent to use the rail link in your "Pacific First" scenario, assuming that the US still plans to send aid to Russia to keep them in the war against Germany. Also I think supplying the US Pacific fleet operating in the Coral Sea/Java Sea via India Australia would be far easier by rail to Madras or Calcutta, than the cross-pacific route to Sydney, it's over 8,000 miles. Unless the US wants to wait for over a year for enough shipping to be built they have to look at shortening the supply lines.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 6, 2008)

Going by boat from San Fran to Sydney is far simpler than having to unload then reload again across a railroad that would be vulnerable to damage and service interruptions. And thats assuming the ports on either end of the rail line can handle the tonnage.

And the US Pacific fleet is going to be supplied through Pearl Harbor which is a couple of thousand miles nearer to the action.

Your trans African railroad makes no sense for the US, in any capacity.


----------



## Freebird (Jan 6, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Going by boat from San Fran to Sydney is far simpler than having to unload then reload again across a railroad that would be vulnerable to damage and service interruptions. And thats assuming the ports on either end of the rail line can handle the tonnage.
> 
> And the US Pacific fleet is going to be supplied through Pearl Harbor which is a couple of thousand miles nearer to the action.
> 
> Your trans African railroad makes no sense for the US, in any capacity.



Suppose the Japanese had destroyed the fuel storage at Pearl the maintainance facilities there too?

And if they had used their submarines to sink US shipping in the Pacific?


----------



## comiso90 (Jan 6, 2008)

freebird said:


> Suppose the Japanese had destroyed the fuel storage at Pearl the maintainance facilities there too?
> 
> And if they had used their submarines to sink US shipping in the Pacific?



If you are going to hypothesize that, you may as well throw in catching the carriers.

At the most, the war would have been prolonged. Japan never wanted to conquer the US. they wanted to pursue their Asian empire building w/o us butting in.

Industrial might would prevail in the end....
.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Jan 6, 2008)

If a RR is to built across Africa, why not build a pipe line as well? Then only goods would have to be transported.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 6, 2008)

Freebird your maps must be different then mine and one must also consider the fact most of the country's your talking about were not even mapped decently at the time . 
The amount of rolling stock required would be massive and who's going to divert production of armour and like things into trains ?
Where is the transport coming from to move the trains to Africa ? 
Which port will have the ability to unload the trains ? 
Where will the equipment come from to make these ports?
As for Water with steam engines you mention Lake Chad but you'll need other sources how long can a steam engine go on a tank of water?
Electricity will be needed for switching and a sundry of other things where is this coming from?

I'll stick with the canal


----------



## Glider (Jan 6, 2008)

Deleted as I was an idiot


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 6, 2008)

freebird said:


> Suppose the Japanese had destroyed the fuel storage at Pearl the maintainance facilities there too?
> 
> And if they had used their submarines to sink US shipping in the Pacific?



The destruction of the fuel tanks at Pearl would have been a great setback. But only for a few months. 

Then the US would have needed to expend escorts to protect the convoys.

Which is still easier to do than escorting convoys to Africa, transhipping them across a railroad of dubious load cpacity and reliability. Then transloading them again back to ships, which would then need escorts to the Aussie bases, which would then need to be transhipped to the US bases in the Pacific.

So what you're saying is its easier to ship a product 20000 miles needing multiple loading and unloading times..... as opposed to shipping it 4000 miles and only one cycle time for loading and unloading.


----------



## Freebird (Jan 6, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> *If you are going to hypothesize that, you may as well throw in catching the carriers.*
> 
> At the most, the war would have been prolonged. Japan never wanted to conquer the US. they wanted to pursue their Asian empire building w/o us butting in.
> 
> ...



Not a bad idea, when analyzing enemy capabilities its always best to consider worst case scenario...

It's true that industrial production would eventually turn the tide, I wonder how much damage would be done before we caught up? 



AL Schlageter said:


> If a RR is to built across Africa, why not build a pipe line as well? Then only goods would have to be transported.



Yes it would indeed be a good idea. If the scenario is "US Isolationist" then oil supply is vital from the Middle east, in the Syscom's "Pacific First" scenario it would be needed for eveything else. In *EVERY SCENARIO* (including historical) the Allies #1 problem is shipping.

The point of moving supplies by rail is

#1 supply Western Desert armies, needing 500,000 - 750,000 tons/month during 1941 -1942 (*note*)

#2 Send weapons supplies to Russia via Egypt Persia

#3 Load raw materials from the Indian Ocean for transport to Nigeria/Cameroons by rail then load onto ships for transport to USA/Britain (**note 2**)

(*note*) According to Eisenhower's "Crusade in Europe" the average Allied division engaged in combat in the Med needed 600 - 700 tons per day, mainly ammunition. (page 235) The British had an average of 16 divisions in combat during this period (all of 1941-1942 in Egypt, Spring 1941 greece/Crete Winter/Spring 1941 Ethiopia, Spring/Summer 1941 Iraq Syria, 1942 Madagascar, Fall/Winter 1942 Malaya, 1942 Burma)

16 divisions x 700 tons x 30 days is 336,000 tons every month, if you include ammunition supplies for the air, flak, fleet support units you need to deliver at least 550,000 - 650,000 tons every month. 650,000 tons/month delivered to either the Egyptian or Indian ports requires 2.75 million tons of shipping, assuming a 4 month round trip from UK or US, and that 95% arrive safely.

(**note 2**) vital materials for the war industry: Rubber from Ceylon Congo, Tin from Nigeria Congo, Bauxite from Guiana, Chromium/Manganese from Rhodisia, India, Gold Coast S. Africa. Most other materials would be available in USA, UK, or Canada.


----------



## Freebird (Jan 6, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Freebird your maps must be different then mine and one must also consider the fact most of the country's your talking about were not even mapped decently at the time.



*There are towns and caravan tracks across central Chad, its been settled grazed since biblical times *


> The amount of rolling stock required would be massive and who's going to divert production of armour and like things into trains ?



No diversion, Canada has over 12,500 engines and 150,000 rolling stock already, I would send perhaps 8,000 - 10,000 cars and a 500 - 600 engines to add to the 750 engines 16,500+ cars already on the Egyptian/Persian systems 


> Where is the transport coming from to move the trains to Africa ?
> Which port will have the ability to unload the trains ?



railcars were typically loaded on the top of cargo ships, they could carry up to 25 - 40 cars in addition to the regular cargo. Remember that over 12,000 railcars/engines were shipped this way to Russia

The British already have many railway ports, in Nigeria, Togo, Gabon, Cameroon, Gold Coast, where cargo was unloaded from the railcars and loaded onto ships for the journey to the UK, the capacity would have to increase, as most ports did in wartime.



> Where will the equipment come from to make these ports?
> As for Water with steam engines you mention Lake Chad but you'll need other sources how long can a steam engine go on a tank of water?
> Electricity will be needed for switching and a sundry of other things where is this coming from?



The ports are already in operation. See photo of Port Sudan rail terminal, typical ror British port rail terminals in Africa

The water towers already exist on the railways, they are needed every few hundred miles, so 2 or 3 might have to be built. Water is available from rhe Nile in the east as well.

The Nigerian Sudan railways already have switching facilities equipment, the same system would be used on the link


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 6, 2008)

All this movement of men and resources ....converting of the differing gauge of track ...converting North American equipment to run on the decided gauge even todat these countries all use differnet gauges . The Nigerian system is not compatable today with any of it's neigbours route if they even have a rail system . Every country you want to build a railway through like Chad, Mali, CAR all have one thing in common no water. 
Use google earth and check out your route. 
Also check out the Alaska Highway and it was built on the North American continent. In short and in the real world it would be a total waste of valuable resources and men.


----------



## Freebird (Jan 9, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> The destruction of the fuel tanks at Pearl would have been a great setback. But only for a few months.



More than a few months I think...



> Then the US would have needed to expend escorts to protect the convoys.



Escorts that they did not have!!

Anyways King decided that convoys did not make any difference.



syscom3 said:


> Going by boat from San Fran to Sydney is far simpler than having to unload then reload again across a railroad that would be vulnerable to damage and service interruptions. And thats assuming the ports on either end of the rail line can handle the tonnage.
> 
> And the US Pacific fleet is going to be supplied through Pearl Harbor which is a couple of thousand miles nearer to the action.
> *Your trans African railroad makes no sense for the US, in any capacity.*
> ...



*Yes it does make sense Syscom*, you are only talking about Hawaii, I'm referring to Java Australia.

1.) if the supply line through Fiji/Samoa to Australia is cut, then the Indian Ocean might be all thats left.

2.) It's the best way to supply Russia, unless you don't plan to send supplies to the Soviets. Would the US still send supplies to the USSR?

3.) It's easier to send Avgas from Abadan by rail to Madras then 2,000 miles to Darwin, rather than 10,000 miles from the USA by ship. (if that's where you plan to base your bombers to hit Japanese oil targets.)

4.) It also makes more sense to supply fuel for ABDA units from India than it does from the longer Pacific route.

How do you see the US participation in ABDA?


----------



## Freebird (Jan 12, 2008)

. 


pbfoot said:


> All this movement of men and resources ....



*War is all about moving men and resources!*  



> converting of the differing gauge of track ...converting North American equipment to run on the decided gauge even todat these countries all use differnet gauges.



None of the N. American equiptment would be converted, only the Nigerian Sudan rails would be re-guaged

Pb it's not that difficult to re-guage railway lines, *the Germans averaged 1,500 track-miles re-guaged per month *of Soviet lines in 1941-1942. The Nigerian Sudan system would need about 850 miles re-guaged in each country, over 3 months that's only 600 miles per month. At the same time the *Germans also built or re-built over 650 track-miles of each month in the USSR,* the difference is that the Soviets also destroyed almost all of the bridges, water tower, coal stations, railway infastructure etc. For the British all of that would still be in place on the Nigerian Sudan systems.



> The Nigerian system is not compatable today with any of it's neigbours route if they even have a rail system . Every country you want to build a railway through like Chad, Mali, CAR all have one thing in common no water.



?? Check my map, the route would only go through Nigeria, Chad Sudan, nowhere near Mali or C.A.R. All railways transport water in tanks to fill the water towers, in 1942-1943 the US UK expanded the Persian system's capacity by over 3000% from Basra - Tabriz, and there is no water there either.



> *Use google earth and check out your route.*



I did, its all mainly flat, hot, semi-arid, savannah not much difference from the northern part of Nevada (Union Pacific route from Reno-salt Lake) except its hotter. *I've posted the terrain map below.*



> Also check out the Alaska Highway and it was built on the North American continent.



*I've driven on the Alaska Highway, thanks*, through Rocky Mountains of nothern B.C., it is about as different from the "Chad rail-link" as possible. Unlike the African grasslands, *the Alaska highway was forested the whole way*, needing tree cutting almost every mile. The Alaska route was very rugged, meaning it had to cross ridges, vallys and many rivers. In addition the winter freeze destroys bridges roadbeds. It was also far away from populated areas transport meaning that men supplies would often have to be flown in. The African route does not have these problems.



> In short and in the real world it would be a total waste of valuable resources and men.



*The men and resources are already in place suppling the Desert Army*, remember that after the long "round the Cape" voyage the supplies would have to be unloaded at over-crowded Red Sea or Palestine ports, and then re-loaded onto railway cars for transport to the front. This was because after the disasterous Greek expedition the Desert Army had lost most of its truck transport.

If the Axis had heavily attacked Allied shipping in the Indian Ocean in 1941 the rail link would allow the Allies to keep fighting, otherwise they would have to abandon Africa, Arabia India as they would not have any ships left supply them. *In the "Real World" the Allies were barely able to survive anyways*, and with a very limited (Indian Ocean) Axis submarine offensive. If the Japanese had sent their subs against Allied ports the *British would be unable to supply their Empire and would probably lose all of the colonies on the Indian Ocean*.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 12, 2008)

I admire your perserverance in your plan with railways but think its nuts too many variables you can't answer to my satisfaction . I think we are reading different maps ,something that was almost non existant of the areas your talking about in those years . Changing narrow gauge to wide gauge . Why all the bother when they were capable of popping out ships in less then a week that can go almost everywhere . Your not even considering defending the access to the ports and resources that would once again have to be pulled away to protect them . I've read a great deal about ferrying aircraft across the same route you talk about using your railway and it was tough unforgiving terrain .And the killer fact of it all they still use ships to this day of getting the most there the fastest


----------



## Freebird (Jan 13, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> *Why all the bother when they were capable of popping out ships in less then a week* that can go almost everywhere . Your not even considering defending the access to the ports and resources that would once again have to be pulled away to protect them .



pB I'm going to answer this other questions, I've started a new thread "Could the Kriegsmarine IJN neutralize the US with a comboned attack". The main reason for using rail instead of ships is that even with the massive US shipbuilding program the Allies STILL ran short of shipping, it became so severe in 1943 that the British considered shutting down the Far East theater to use the ships to supply the UK in the "1943 British Import Crisis"


----------



## Monk (Feb 23, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> May have to agree with Tom, but the one thing that still gets me is whether or not Hitler wanted to pull the US into the fray.... I think he was gobbled up in his power and thought himself/Germany undefeatable....
> 
> Why else would he have attacked Russia???
> 
> ...



I just cannot resist!

Hitler attacked Russian because he had no choice! It is a well known fact that Stalin intended to attack Germany in 1942 or maybe 1943, as soon as Russia's industrial capacity had been moved safely west of the Ural's. Hitler's was well aware of this, he had spies in Russia of course. Hitler knew that if he waited until the Soviets were ready to attack Germany that he'd have no chance at all.

As for Germany declaring war on the USA, they did so because Hitler felt the Japanese were the "Aryan's" of Asia, and he had a treaty with them to go to war with the USA should the USA declare war on Japan. But this was hardly relevant, the USA would have entered the war in Europe regardless.

As for the fundamental question in this thread, the answer is obvious - Europe would have been conquered by Germany had the US stayed completely out of the war (except for supply of Britain) or by the Soviets had the US also chosen to supply Russia. In the first case Britain would probably have given in to peace terms with Germany but Germany would have ruled the continent.

Remember, the USA made up over 2/3rds of the world's industrial capacity in 1942, more as they got into the war.

So the USA did "save Europe" in WWII, anyone who cannot see this is a fool.

Swing your hammer m8 and leave history to those who actually study it!


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 23, 2008)

Monk said:


> ......
> Remember, the USA made up over 2/3rds of the world's industrial capacity in 1942, more as they got into the war.
> ....



Agreed. The US industrial capacity is what made the difference for an allied victory.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 24, 2008)

Monk said:


> Swing your hammer m8 and leave history to those who actually study it!



That was uncalled for.

You might not like the hammer once it starts swinging.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 24, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> *The US entry into the war in Europe guarenteed that the allies would win.* Therefore America gets credit for saving the butt's of the European people.



Nothing in war is guaranteed.



syscom3 said:


> Again, no-one has proven me wrong.....
> 
> The UK did not have the resources to win by themselves. Thus whomever wins between Russia and Germany will be the victor.



Unless, as Plan D states, they bleed each other down so much first that neither can contest an Allied landing into Western Europe



syscom said:


> With the US in the fight, the allies will eventually win.
> 
> Anyone with half a brain knows that.



Could the US have had a ground victory in Europe without Russia?

Could the US have landed in Europe without British help or bases? And could the Russians have held out without British help the Commonwealth keeping a big chunk of Axis forces occupied instead of fighting in the East? 



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is the thing that you fail to realize. *Not one single force could win the war by themselves.* Without the Eastern Front the Germans would have been to powerful in the west. Without the Western Front, vice versa.
> 
> You let pride cloud your judgement.
> .



Your analysis is absolutely correct Adler. 



Monk said:


> I just cannot resist!
> 
> So the USA did "save Europe" in WWII, anyone who cannot see this is a fool.
> 
> Swing your hammer m8 and leave history to those who actually study it!



Nothing like throwing down the gauntlet in your first post to get noticed is there?


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 24, 2008)

freebird said:


> Unless, as Plan D states, they bleed each other down so much first that neither can contest an Allied landing into Western Europe



The commonwealth didnt have the resources to invade France without the US men and material. BTW, how are you going to win air superiority without the long range P38's and P51's? 



> Could the US have had a ground victory in Europe without Russia?



If the US isnt even in the war, that statement is irrelevant.



> Could the US have landed in Europe without British help or bases? And could the Russians have held out without British help the Commonwealth keeping a big chunk of Axis forces occupied instead of fighting in the East?



This thread is about whether the Commonwealth and/or Russia had the power to defeat Germany without US aid.


----------



## Monk (Feb 25, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That was uncalled for.
> 
> You might not like the hammer once it starts swinging.



I beg to differ.

And Chris, you may find you do not like where the hammer finally lands when it has traveled its full measure! Look up, what is that spinning shadow?

LOL


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 25, 2008)

Monk said:


> I beg to differ.
> 
> And Chris, you may find you do not like where the hammer finally lands when it has traveled its full measure! Look up, what is that spinning shadow?
> 
> LOL




Monk - you're an idiot - I suggest you refrain from any more smart ass remarks or your stay here will be VERY short.


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 25, 2008)

Where do these newbies come from?

Yikes


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 25, 2008)

Monk said:


> I beg to differ.
> 
> And Chris, you may find you do not like where the hammer finally lands when it has traveled its full measure! Look up, what is that spinning shadow?
> 
> LOL



If you have nothing constructive to say, then dont say anything at all...


----------



## Freebird (Feb 25, 2008)

Monk said:


> * anyone who cannot see this is a fool.*



Monk I'll give you some advice - If you want to post opinions It's best to avoid insulting remarks when doing so. Also you will notice that the Mods have their names colored, if you get insulting or flippant with them it's at your own peril. 



AL Schlageter said:


> Got this off some BB somewhere, sometime.
> 
> 1939:
> Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
> ...





syscom3 said:


> Great info!!!!!
> 
> Thanks.





drgondog said:


> Al - this is best summary I have seen so far and adds some facts to my own speculation.





Civettone said:


> Yeah, that was a great post, Al! I saved it on my HD!



Guys what happened to Al? I see he got banned, he didn't seem like the hotheaded type.


----------

