Did the US save Europe in WW2?

[drgondog]

Hunter - I like to think I am a fact based debater, in which there are facts, opinions based on facts and opinions. I try to stick with the first two as the last position is easily assaulted?

Thanks for recognizing that I was not being confrontational nor arguing a position of US uber Alles - jes asking questions that were relevant to the thread

 

[Hunter368]

Hunter - I like to think I am a fact based debater, in which there are facts, opinions based on facts and opinions. I try to stick with the first two as the last position is easily assaulted?

Thanks for recognizing that I was not being confrontational nor arguing a position of US uber Alles - jes asking questions that were relevant to the thread

Ok.

I see now you were asking questions relevant to this thread.....that is not the problem in my eyes. You were looking at the thread from a objective view which is fine. But could you have done that if you were from a country that Syscom is devaluing with his thread and comments? See my point? I have family who died fighting in WW2 and I take offense to the fact that Syscom is down playing their role in WW2. Calling their efforts a "side show" and "minor".

This thread itself is the problem and the person who started it and why he started it......thats the problem. A good debater does not have to use a negative to prove a positive. Meaning he does not have to devalue other countries contributions while showing his own countries contributions.

 

[Airborne]

There is a factor here that would have been the deciding one.
If the US had stayed in the Pacific to fight and ultimately beat the Japanese, the British and the Commonwealth [Aust Canada, NZ etc] together with Russia could have maintained the mid forties status quo until the US attained nuclear weapons.
After dropping two on Japan to bring the Pacific war to an end, the US could have bought such overwhelming pressure to bear on the Nazis with this nuclear threat that they could have been forced a surrender.

Now, let me say here that I do not for one moment think that the US would have nuked Germany, just the unknown threat after the Japan nukes would have done it.
It is one thing to nuke Asians, but another to nuke western civilization. [Smile]
So Eagle, I believe that the US would have saved Europe by default anyway if their military might hadn't done the job by 1945 to save it from an even worst fate. Stalin.

 

[syscom3]

Lets make one thing clear.

Just because a soldier or country fights a battle courageously, it doesnt mean the battle was strategically important.

Yes, the commonwealth troops fought bravely in the CBI. But it was still a side show anyway you look at it.

Yes, the US troops fought bravely in the Aleutions. But how did that materially effect the course of the war?

I dare anyone here to show me where I said that commonwealth troops fought poorly.

And I would like someone to show me where the massive industrial plants, mills, and shipyards outside of the UK were located, so all of these hypothetical commonwealth divisions are going to be equiped and supplied without extensive US support.

 

[Airborne]

The problem Syscom, you haven't made it clear at all.
Please tell us again. What point are you making.

The only basic points I have made is that US help was needed to finish the job in Europe against Hitler and then halt Stalin.

Both England and Russia were exhausted,

 

[syscom3]

needed to finish the job in Europe and halt Stalin.

Thats the point.

Without the US involvement in Europe, either the Germans or Russians win.

In the Pacific, we won it hands down alone.

Nowhere did say the US could beat Germany by itself.

 

[Hunter368]

Lets make one thing clear.

Just because a soldier or country fights a battle courageously, it doesnt mean the battle was strategically important.

Yes, the commonwealth troops fought bravely in the CBI. But it was still a side show anyway you look at it.

Yes, the US troops fought bravely in the Aleutions. But how did that materially effect the course of the war?

I dare anyone here to show me where I said that commonwealth troops fought poorly.

And I would like someone to show me where the massive industrial plants, mills, and shipyards outside of the UK were located, so all of these hypothetical commonwealth divisions are going to be equiped and supplied without extensive US support.

Forget it Syscom you just don't get it and unlike you I do not have limitless levels of patience. If you don't get it by now you never will. I am done explaining it over and over again to you.

 

[Bernhart]

US won it alone? What aboutthe Chinese, Philipinos, Australians, New Zealanders, s, Canadians, Dutch, Indians to name several thousand.

 

[Bernhart]

also web page listing Canadas industial contributions to war effort

Canada at War - Page: WWII: Canadian War Industry

 

[Hunter368]

also web page listing Canadas industial contributions to war effort

Canada at War - Page: WWII: Canadian War Industry

Cool link. But a word of advice don't bother with this argument, you will just be wasting your time.

 

[syscom3]

US won it alone? What aboutthe Chinese, Philipinos, Australians, New Zealanders, s, Canadians, Dutch, Indians to name several thousand.

Chinese: They fought amongst themselves more often than the Japanese. Contribution to the fight in the Pacific was negligible.

Philipino's: Contribution ended with the occupation of the PI in 1942. Contributed a lot when the US returned in 1944, but by then, the war was lost by Japan.

ANZAC. Immense contribution in the SW Pacific, but was of no strategic significance after the Summer of 1944 when the war shifted northwards. But even if by fate there were no allied response to Japan's advance in the SW Pacific in 1942, the USN was going to defeat the IJN in the Central Pacific in late 1943/Early 1944.

Dutch and Canadian contribution in the Pacific was zero.

Indian: Fought bravely against the IJA in a backwater of the war with no strategic significance.

 

[syscom3]

also web page listing Canadas industial contributions to war effort

Canada at War - Page: WWII: Canadian War Industry

Interesting statistics. But it still was only a drop in the bucket compared to the US production. The Canadian production was not enough to offset the US Contribution, and considering Canada was the more industrialized of the other two big commonwealth countries. S Africa and Australia.

Look at the naval production. Only four destroyers. 410 cargo ships? Far from what was needed. Aircraft production? 16,418 aircraft. Impressive for a country of its size, but again far too few for what would be needed.

Canada only had 11 million people which did have economic and military limitations.

 

[Marcel]

Did the US save (Western) Europe? Yes no doubt about that, so Syscom is right about that.
Did the Commenwealth save Western Europe? Yes, also no doubt about it.
What language would I speak if it wasn't for the US saving europe? My own (dutch) the polish still speak polish instead of Russian, so the question was not a very intelligent one
For the rest, this discussion is quite ridculous.

 

[syscom3]

.....
What language would I speak if it wasn't for the US saving europe? My own (dutch) the polish still speak polish instead of Russian, so the question was not a very intelligent one
For the rest, this discussion is quite ridculous.

Marcel, when we say what language would be spoken in Europe after a German or Russian victory is just a play on words.

Of course you would speak your own national language. But the 2nd language you would need to learn was either German or Russian.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

US won it alone? What aboutthe Chinese, Philipinos, Australians, New Zealanders, s, Canadians, Dutch, Indians to name several thousand.

Nobody here has ever said that. Go back and read all the posts.

 

[plan_D]

I can't be bothered to go back and forth quoting all the little bits, because this is getting tedious.

I never stated that the BPF was as big as the U.S Pacific Fleet; I recognise that it was a fraction of the size. I was making it clear to your blind mind that the British had a presence in the Pacific and aided the U.S there. As much as you might not appreciate it, I'm sure a lot of American soldiers and sailors appreciated a British presence in the Pacific.


A European war without the U.S would have seen Britain in Italy and the Soviet Union on the Rhine (most likely scenario). If that was the case Western Europe would be hoping that the Soviet Union didn't continue; like the Western Allies did in real life.
I'm sure everyone is aware what would have happened if the Soviet Union had continued in 1945 and smashed their way through Western lines; no one was going to stop it in a hurry. And personally I believe that Stalin would have stopped at Germany - the war had a large effect on him and the nation.

On the industrial point, stop comparing the British Commonwealth in 1944 to the U.S in 1944 - that's a mute point. It would be British Commonwealth after gearing up against Germany, which would have the largest industry?

You seem to be completely lacking of any clue; there's no side-shows in war. All points are pressure for the enemies resources and forces, in a war of attrition these "side-shows" are important to whittle away at the enemy. If these areas were unimportant then the Allies would not have made attempts on them, nor would the Axis.

And 275,000 men lost in Africa (at least) and the Germans had two years left of fighting ... Britain collapses, Germany still has those 275,000 men and their tanks, I wonder how Stalingrad would have turned out if Germany had those men and that material to relieve it after the encirclement.

You're boring, and the fact that you stated a loss of 275,000 men had no affect on the German war effort says it all ... do you know how many were lost at Stalingrad, sys, that turning point in the war? 300,000, a simple 25,000 more, did that not have an effect on the German war effort?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You're boring, and the fact that you stated a loss of 275,000 men had no affect on the German war effort says it all ... do you know how many were lost at Stalingrad, sys, that turning point in the war? 300,000, a simple 25,000 more, did that not have an effect on the German war effort?

Actually more if you count the captured. Total German casualties for Stalingrad were about 740,000 killed or wounded and 110,000 captured. My grandfather was one of the wounded.

While I agree that an allied victory was not going to happen without the US (nor could the US defeat the Axis alone without England and Russia) I do have to agree with pD on what he is saying.

All of those soldiers fighting in the CBI and other locations in the Pacific were holding up Japanese troops that Japan could have used in other locations against the US.

Same can be said for N. Africa. Those German troops that were killed, wounded and captured were not fighting in Western France or in Russia.

Those troops could have made the difference between allied or axis victory.

Moral of the story:

It was an allied victory and all sides played a major role.

 

[Hunter368]

A.

Moral of:

It was an allied victory and all sides played a major role.

Exactly......whats the need in trying to determine who had a fractional more to do with victory in real world and then trying to guess who could of done what in the fictional world. We all fought together, bled together and died together. We should all thank each other for a job well done. We all played different roles during the war, not always b/c we could not do another role but that was what we decided to do at the time for the greater good of the alliance. A great part of what role we played had to do with timing and where our country was located.

I just don't see an educational value or any value in trying to determine who was the "MVP" for the Allies. Team effort = team victory. The Allies worked together better as Allies/partners which helped guarantee victory over the Axis. After all what hurt Germany most was fighting on several fronts spreading their formidable war machine out. A war machine that no single country could defeat I might add. So all those "side shows" most definitely played a big role in defeating the Axis powers.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It's like saying the USA (Anaheim) won the Stanley Cup (even though there were more Canadian citizens on the Ducks than the Ottawa Senators).

 

[Hunter368]

It's like saying the USA (Anaheim) won the Stanley Cup (even though there were more Canadian citizens on the Ducks than the Ottawa Senators).

Exactly