Did the US save Europe in WW2?

[Hunter368]

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]

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]

Russia did endured the worst in the war...

 

[Udet]

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]

Instal said, "It is a peoples resolve that determines the outcome of war."


Tell that to the Japanese.

 

[Instal]

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]

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]

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]

While this is very true it does not go far enough.

I can't believe Haztoys has to qualify every single word ...

 

[Instal]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

Ouch. You gotta love pD when he gets on a roll.

 

[Hunter368]

Ouch. You gotta love pD when he gets on a roll.

Yes it can be amusing........

 

[Haztoys]

planD..The Terminator... ...I would think by now Syscom3 would know this...

 

[Hunter368]

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]

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]

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.