Did the US save Europe in WW2?

[syscom3]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[syscom3]

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.

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]

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]

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]

The events of the Pacific are inapplicable here.

Okey dokey....

 

[Cyrano]

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]

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]

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]

What about lend lease was this in play

 

[syscom3]

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]

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.