Did the US save Europe in WW2?

[drgondog]

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]

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]

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.

Syscom - I don't really take exception to your points.. I would add the following. Without our interference the Japs did have shipping - whether it would sustain a bitterly fought campaign in India is of course pure speculation on my part. As to expanding beyond what they had in 1942 - what forces were available to stop them? Britain would be foolish trying to continue fighting against the Japs when they had a much bigger prob 26 miles away?

As to taking Manchuria and Siberia in the scenario of Germany threatening to win on the West, USSR putting everything they had to Stalingrad and keeping Germany out of the oilfields? what did USSR have in the way of reserves to whack Japan in 1942.. remeber in my speculation I suspected Japan would go Manchuria rather than India and the supply issue far easier there.

2) Japanese attacks in SE Asia would draw the US into the war simply by the Philipines being in the area.

This is all about US staying out of war so for sake of boundary conditions stipulate that they don't attack Pearl Harbor or Phillipines early. I fully realize that failing to take Phillipines is unrealistist war plan but otherwise this thread is stupid.

3) The UK could have controlled the submarine threat to a managable level by use of long range aircraft and more capable escorts.

I Don't believe that to be true but my opinion only - it was extremely iffy even with our full and enthusiastic support in the Atlantic..and only evened out in 1943. Where does Britain's capacity to build warships and replace supply ships reach a breaking point to replace what is sunk? How are they going to stop the U-Boat build up - and the question of control has only a binary outcome. Either Britain gets enough supplies and manpower from Commonwealth to sustain their own pressure or the situation goes the other way. My guess is that they don't have the naval assets w/o US to prevail against U-Boat constiction past critical point.

4) The US would have developed the atomic bomb anyway.

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]

"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.

What was crucial in the PTO is that the Commonwealth and China kept large Japanese assest from being deployed to resist the US thrust from Austrailia straight to Japan. It was necessary and the US was in no position to engage in large numbers in CBI and still build up for SW and South Pacific thrusts.

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.

I would agree we couldn't go it alone in Europe, would disagree that Royal Navy could go it alone and control Atlantic w/o USN presence - at least with respect to U-Boat threat.. which was an all day lunch for the US and GB combined. Do you have a scenario in which GB survives zero US support in Atlantic? (USN and Merchant Marine) or land bases in Greenland and Iceland?

I would tend to say without a focused and dedicated effort by Canada, GB and US - the Germans win the battle of the Atlantic - do you disagree?

Why do people choose to forget areas of the war to bolster... something... in their own mind.

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]

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]

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]

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]

.....
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]

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.

The Japanese had much in common with Britain in context of a.) being a net importer of critical war materials and b.) being wholly dependent on their Navy to secure those assets to continue war fighting

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.

At the end of the day the Japanese were reduced to existence on what they had on hand only on the home islands and no ability to expand resistance ability beyond what existed on the islands. Nothing in China, Formosa, Korea or Viet Nam could help - ditto in my opinion for Britain if U-Boat campaign ultimately successful - no way for Commonwealth to flow to Britain to help

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

Hunter I assure you I do not denigrate the UK, the Commonwealth or the USSR in the ALLIED effort to defeat the Axis. As I look through my own postings I thought I was clear about that but obviously not if you had a different impression
QUOTE]

I took the thread question seriously however because it made me think about my own opinion of how the war could have ended, politically speaking, for Europe.

THE major contribution the US made early in the war, which could have tipped the balance, was to get involved in defeating the U-Boat threat by mid 1943. So, for me the question to be asked is:

Does US complete neutrality - no Lend Lease, no war material, no fuel, no food from US shores to Britain, no training of RAF bomber and Fighter pilots - enable Germany to a.) get the upper hand in the Atlantic and b.) throttle the British Isles to point that the natural resources of the Middle East, Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth do not flow in or out of the sea lanes at a level to sustain Britain's fight against Germany? I just don't know but my opinion is No.

I do not, and never will believe the US could have prevailed against the combination of Germany AND Japan alone, nor am I sure of the outcome if USSR knocked out in 1942 and only Brits and Commonwealth are primary allies. It would depend on the conditions of a Germany/USSR truce in my mind.

Source of Oil being the key factor. If USSR knocked out in 1942 does Germany drive to Middle East once again and control the Suez?

If Britain knocked out in 1942 due to strangulation of supply chain to and from battlefield and non existent US sources - then in my opinion, either USSR or Germany prevails in Europe and Japan prevails in Pacific... while we sit and arm ourselves.

Somebody needs to convince me that Britain could defeat the U-Boat and retain control of all sea lanes absent US help. This is still the key wild card in my mind.. and BTW I am not at all sure we could defeat the U-Boat threat if we went alone either.

Do you see it otherwise?

 

[Udet]

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]

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.

Hunter I assure you I do not denigrate the UK, the Commonwealth or the USSR in the ALLIED effort to defeat the Axis. As I look through my own postings I thought I was clear about that but obviously not if you had a different impression
QUOTE]

I took the thread question seriously however because it made me think about my own opinion of how the war could have ended, politically speaking, for Europe.

THE major contribution the US made early in the war, which could have tipped the balance, was to get involved in defeating the U-Boat threat by mid 1943. So, for me the question to be asked is:

Does US complete neutrality - no Lend Lease, no war material, no fuel, no food from US shores to Britain, no training of RAF bomber and Fighter pilots - enable Germany to a.) get the upper hand in the Atlantic and b.) throttle the British Isles to point that the natural resources of the Middle East, Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth do not flow in or out of the sea lanes at a level to sustain Britain's fight against Germany? I just don't know but my opinion is No.

I do not, and never will believe the US could have prevailed against the combination of Germany AND Japan alone, nor am I sure of the outcome if USSR knocked out in 1942 and only Brits and Commonwealth are primary allies. It would depend on the conditions of a Germany/USSR truce in my mind.

Source of Oil being the key factor. If USSR knocked out in 1942 does Germany drive to Middle East once again and control the Suez?

If Britain knocked out in 1942 due to strangulation of supply chain to and from battlefield and non existent US sources - then in my opinion, either USSR or Germany prevails in Europe and Japan prevails in Pacific... while we sit and arm ourselves.

Somebody needs to convince me that Britain could defeat the U-Boat and retain control of all sea lanes absent US help. This is still the key wild card in my mind.. and BTW I am not at all sure we could defeat the U-Boat threat if we went alone either.

Do you see it otherwise?

See when a person puts it like that it is not bad......but Syscom posts very differently. You put it as a question or debate, non confrontational. Sorry Bill at first I thought you were trying to back up Syscom and his point which I saw as being confrontational. Sorry that I questioned your intent, I see that it is slightly different then Syscom's.

Syscom likes to confront people, put it in their face, devalue other countries contributions while boasting about what USA did without everyone else's help.

That gets old.

 

[Hunter368]

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).