Did the US save Europe in WW2?

Arsenal VG-33 · Nov 9, 2007

Hi. I'm a newly registered member, though I've visited before from time to time, simply to see what if anything interesting was going on. I decided to join this evening only to say that this is a particularly silly thread.

For the record, I'm a very well traveled person, at least I consider myself to be. Besides all the western European countries, I've also traveled to Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, and the Czech and Slovak republics. Guess what? After 40+ years of existance behind the "Iron Curtain" under the Soviet boot, the people still speak Polish in Poland, Hungarian in Hungary, Lithuanian in Lithuania, and etc.

Kind Regards to all.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Nov 10, 2007

Arsenal VG-33 said:
Hi. I'm a newly registered member, though I've visited before from time to time, simply to see what if anything interesting was going on. I decided to join this evening only to say that this is a particularly silly thread.

For the record, I'm a very well traveled person, at least I consider myself to be. Besides all the western European countries, I've also traveled to Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, and the Czech and Slovak republics. Guess what? After 40+ years of existance behind the "Iron Curtain" under the Soviet boot, the people still speak Polish in Poland, Hungarian in Hungary, Lithuanian in Lithuania, and etc.

Kind Regards to all.

If you had actually taken the time to read through the posts instead of just throwing something out there, you would have seen that he did not litteraly imply that Europe would be speaking Russian or German. What he meant by that is that it would be controled by either one.

Now have a nice day...

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Nov 10, 2007

drgondog said:
Chris, Plan_D, Udet, Hunter, Syscom -

I have generally thought of the ultimate victory over the Axis by the Allies include very important milestones in which the flow of momentum in the war was reversed.. among those in my mind include Battle of Britain, Midway, El Alameiin, Guadalcanal and Stalingrad plus the Battle of the Atlantic.

My question earlier was "would Great Britain' defeat the German U-Boat campaign, or blunt it sufficiently to permit the necessary flow of resources to and from the British Isles as required to continue the war and keep pressure on Germany from two sides?

I respect all of your opinions on this subject - to me it currently is the elephant that sits in the corner of the room relative to fate of Europe.

This question is posed on the basis of US staying strictly neutral (i.e FDR does not win in 1940) with no Lend Lease or other support... I suppose it permits Japan to attack Britain and France in Pacific and be smart enough to 'respect' US neutrality..

What are your thoughts?

Regards,

Bill

No I dont think they could have.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Nov 10, 2007

Bernhart said:
now i remember why i stopped reading this thread

And you had to spam the thread by just posting that? Way to go, you could have just stayed out of the conversation if you had nothing constructive to say!

plan_D · Nov 12, 2007

I'm bored with this now; syscom, you cannot even read simple posts. I said stop comparing the U.S industry to the Commonwealth industy, and the post after you compare them again as a counter!! I say I recognise the small size of the BPF compared to the U.S PF, but they were in the Pacific - and you come out with the BPF was small !

On the U-boats;

Look at the U-boat losses, and see if Germany could maintain losses against the Royal Navy. The fact of the matter is, in the Atlantic it was mostly a British affair and Germany could not hold up.

The only sensible comment made in here was the fact that it was an Allied effort for victory; and the question was dumb in the first place.

syscom3 · Nov 12, 2007

plan_D said:
I say I recognise the small size of the BPF compared to the U.S PF, but they were in the Pacific - and you come out with the BPF was small !

"Small"? try tiny.

On the U-boats;

Look at the U-boat losses, and see if Germany could maintain losses against the Royal Navy. The fact of the matter is, in the Atlantic it was mostly a British affair and Germany could not hold up.

If I am not mistaken, U-Boat loss's went way up when the US provided large numbers of escorts and escort carriers. Would the RN been able to take up the slack?

The only sensible comment made in here was the fact that it was an Allied effort for victory; and the question was dumb in the first place.

But the issue is if the Commonwealth forces would have been able to beat Germany before the Russians were either knoked out of the war, or won it plain and simple.

drgondog · Nov 12, 2007

plan_D said:
On the U-boats;

Look at the U-boat losses, and see if Germany could maintain losses against the Royal Navy. The fact of the matter is, in the Atlantic it was mostly a British affair and Germany could not hold up.

Plan_D the best figures I have been able to come up with for Britain to be able to sustain itself was 1,000,000 tons per week. The US gave the 50 old destroyers to GB in 1940 and extended its Pan American Security Zone to Iceland to start basing B-24s and PBYs to cover the middle zone in Spring 1941.

We (the US) did not make the contributions we could have made to the Battle of the Atlantic because Adm King was focused on North Africa and Pacific - largely leaving the Battle to RN and Canada to get US and Brit Merchant fleet back and forth.

The crescendo of the campaign if I recall correctly was in Spring of 1943 when the US (Adm King) had finally gotten the message and forced to help the very able RN more than he wanted to by re-deploying Destroyers and escort carriers to the Atlantic.

I am NOT saying the RN could not prevail.

What is not clear to me is if the US Merchant fleet, the 50 Destroyers, the help from Iceland based aircarft, the food and the oil were not ever coming from the US - then what was Britain's ability to a.) keep the sea lanes open, and b.) Transport raw materials, food and oil into Britain from other Commonwealth locations at a high enough level to sustain the war effort?
The only sensible comment made in here was the fact that it was an Allied effort for victory; and the question was dumb in the first place.

I fully agree the victory - I'm wondering what happens in 1942-1943

The most troubling question for me is where does the Bunker C and AvGas come from w/o US intervention in the war? Its not coming from US, and Japan has the Indonesia/Dutch supply warapped up, Suez to GB would be very tenuous either through the Med or around South Afrika - USSR in no position to export.

Does GB have enough food production internally? If not where was source of supply?

RN would most likely have to contend with IJN in India Ocean with perhaps their submarine fleet extending much more around South Africa. Does this pressure become the straw that breaks the back of RN?

In your opinion, does the Commonwealth have the collective ability to keep Britain in the war in 1943-1944 as far as import of raw materials - and out produce Germany by building enough transport shipping to offset the attrition as Germany builds U-Boats for same reason and IJN becomes a wild card interceptor in Indian Ocean.

If all the shipping tonnage both in ships and supplied material that was lost in 1939 to 1943 from US sources, were applied to RN/Commonwealth shipping and material inventories, what impact is that on a.) the sustenance level for food and b.) the raw materail and fuel balance to re-build and fight from UK?

Freebird · Nov 14, 2007

syscom3 said:
Explain to me how the Brits (and commonwealth) were going to have the resources in which to fight the Germans and win? Germany was not a maritime power, thus the RN could contril the sea lanes, but not strike the heart of German industrial power. The RAF didnt have the resources by itself to fight a 24/7/365 bombing campaign, let alone provide enough tactical aircraft to support an invasion. The BA? Sorry, but in every catagory, the German army was superior.

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

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

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

Only two choices? How about a long stalemate, 1942 - 1943 between Russia Germany, with neither strong enough to push the other back. And you also assume that the UK has to invade Italy/Germany to "Win"

syscom3 · Nov 14, 2007

freebird said:
Only two choices? How about a long stalemate, 1942 - 1943 between Russia Germany, with neither strong enough to push the other back. And you also assume that the UK has to invade Italy/Germany to "Win"

The Commonwealth must invade in order to win.

The war cannot go indefinatley in the east. Either an armistice or victory(by either Germany or Russia) will end the war.

Germany was far to powerfull to be defeated by the commonwealth without an invasion. Remember, in 1945, the LW will have the jets and nearly all of the airplanes in the RAF will be at risk. The KM will also have the advanced subs which will play havoc on the navies.

greenblue_4 · Nov 14, 2007

the US did send some tanks and planes that helped in the russian war effort and surely everybody knows about that. The one thing that was overlook maybe was the US contributions which is in the form of food rations and the millions of boots essentially needed by the russians to fight on the freezing ground. Without the foods and shoes for the common soldiers, the counter attack and flanking manouvers necessary for the recovery of lost ground from the german army would not have been made possible. Hence the German army could have held the lines they occupied longer.

Freebird · Nov 14, 2007

greenblue_4 said:
the US did send some tanks and planes that helped in the russian war effort and surely everybody knows about that. The one thing that was overlook maybe was the US contributions which is in the form of food rations and the millions of boots essentially needed by the russians to fight on the freezing ground. Without the foods and shoes for the common soldiers, the counter attack and flanking manouvers necessary for the recovery of lost ground from the german army would not have been made possible. Hence the German army could have held the lines they occupied longer.

The most important contributions were in the first year of the war. All the material sent ito Russia in 1941 was BRITISH, the US did not start lend -lease to Russia until 1942 and so was not used in the winter counterattack of 1941. By the fall of 1942 the Russians were in a much better position.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Nov 15, 2007

freebird said:
Only two choices? How about a long stalemate, 1942 - 1943 between Russia Germany, with neither strong enough to push the other back. And you also assume that the UK has to invade Italy/Germany to "Win"

Please explain how the UK is going to win without invading? This should be interesting...

drgondog · Nov 15, 2007

freebird said:
Only two choices? How about a long stalemate, 1942 - 1943 between Russia Germany, with neither strong enough to push the other back. And you also assume that the UK has to invade Italy/Germany to "Win"

How does Britain keep the sea lanes open from Commonwealth to the isles - to import thr AvGas, Bunker C and Food necessary to a.) support the people at home, b.) provision the troops in the field, c.) build more tons of merchant ships than the U-Boats sink, and d.) become strong enough to invade Ireland - much less Italy, Greece or Europe?

These are crux questions surrounding US scenario of staying Neutral. Japan has her way with Commonwealth in Pacific - including shutting off all oil supplies.. Japan could, or might not contribute its own Submarine fleets to cut off oil from eastern supply routes around Africa.

German U-Boat fleets could primarily concentrate in Med, shutting off enough (or all oil from Middle East) before expanding to blockade Britain. Could RN and Canada combined put enough Oil and food and Merchant tonnage to move it - enough to keep Britain strong and active?

The 50 WWI destroyers weren't the greatest and Britain had to spend months before they were properly equipped - but the Merchant shipping and the food, AvGas and Bunker C were huge contributions if US didn't even fire a shot in WWII?

Could the RN keep enough Oil and food going both ways from Commonwealth to support a war against the Axis? I don't believe the combined weight of Commonwealth production can tip the balance.. but enlighten me..

This isn't about 'bashing the Empire' - I know that it took a combined Allied effort to defeat Axis. The central question is whether Europe is free today absent US involvement in WWII.. or even before 1943.

Civettone · Nov 15, 2007

greenblue_4 said:
the US did send some tanks and planes that helped in the russian war effort and surely everybody knows about that. The one thing that was overlook maybe was the US contributions which is in the form of food rations and the millions of boots essentially needed by the russians to fight on the freezing ground. Without the foods and shoes for the common soldiers, the counter attack and flanking manouvers necessary for the recovery of lost ground from the german army would not have been made possible. Hence the German army could have held the lines they occupied longer.

Good first post Greenblue!
Lend lease was indeed much more than weapons and ammo. It was basic stuff like food and boots. But also raw materials, locomotives, telephones, wiring, etc.

Kris

Freebird · Nov 15, 2007

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Please explain how the UK is going to win without invading? This should be interesting...

Ok I really don't like when complex questions are boiled down into Win/Lose choices. This is like the debate today with the War in Iraq, where certain people say that if you don't support the current strategy that you want the West to "Lose". No, I just think that a "Win" by the original definition is impossible, and that a alternate strategy is required.

Getting back to the WWII question, if the British prevent their Island from being invaded, and maintain most of their Empire they "Win". The RN was doing fairly well against the U-boats in 1941, remember that a high % of the 1942 losses was American, on the west coast of the US. The war between the Russians Germany will sap so much strength that neither can win quickly or threaten the UK.

If you look at the situation from the beginning of 1942, (No "Pearl" US neutral) I think that Russia would still have held out. If the US was not going to help the British, the Brit's might have been able to come to an agreement with the Japanese, just like France was forced to do. Remember that it was US pressure that forced the British to go along with antagonizing the Japanese by re-opening the Burma road and cutting off oil. (from Burma Borneo + the Dutch oil) If it was only the Americans trying to force the Japanese into war (by their trade policies) then the Pacific war may only have been between the Chinese, Japanse Americans

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Nov 15, 2007

freebird said:
Getting back to the WWII question, if the British prevent their Island from being invaded, and maintain most of their Empire they "Win". The RN was doing fairly well against the U-boats in 1941, remember that a high % of the 1942 losses was American, on the west coast of the US. The war between the Russians Germany will sap so much strength that neither can win quickly or threaten the UK.

No they dont win. You have to remember England declared war on Germany. They did not have to (dont take me wrong it was the right thing to do because Nazi Germany had to be stopped). Therefore unless they defeat Germany they do not win.

England (again this is if the US is not in the war) does not invade Germany they do not defeat them and therefore they do not win.

Eventually Germany is going to get more and more powerful and N. Africa will be won by the Germans.

British territories and colonies in the Pacific would have eventually been taken by the Japanese as well.

Still comes down to invasion. They do not invade, they lose.

greenblue_4 · Nov 16, 2007

freebird said:
The most important contributions were in the first year of the war. All the material sent ito Russia in 1941 was BRITISH, the US did not start lend -lease to Russia until 1942 and so was not used in the winter counterattack of 1941. By the fall of 1942 the Russians were in a much better position.

Be as it may, but the significance of the lend lease could not be underestimated because the german's did not stop attacking russia after 1941. The german army continued their onslaught right into 1942..1943 and til the end of the war.

The list 1 below is the amount of war matériel shipped to the Soviet Union through the Lend-Lease program from its beginning until 30 September 1945.

Aircraft 14,795
Tanks 7,056
Jeeps 51,503
Trucks 375,883
Motorcycles 35,170
Tractors 8,071
Guns 8,218
Machine guns 131,633
Explosives 345,735 tons
Building equipment valued $10,910,000
Railroad freight cars 11,155
Locomotives 1,981
Cargo ships 90
Submarine hunters 105
Torpedo boats 197
Ship engines 7,784
Food supplies 4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment $1,078,965,000
Non-ferrous metals 802,000 tons
Petroleum products 2,670,000 tons
Chemicals 842,000 tons
Cotton 106,893,000 tons
Leather 49,860 tons
Tires 3,786,000
Army boots 15,417,001 pairs

comiso90 · Nov 16, 2007

How many "Russians" today realize the contributions of the West???
Its true that it was a self serving offensive. It wasn't all charity. It was a fighting force by proxy. We supplied the Russians cause there wasn't a Western front. We fed them but they bled the Germans.

,

.

Freebird · Nov 16, 2007

comiso90 said:
How many "Russians" today realize the contributions of the West???
Its true that it was a self serving offensive. It wasn't all charity. It was a fighting force by proxy. We supplied the Russians cause there wasn't a Western front. We fed them but they bled the Germans.

,

.

The Russians have very little idea of the help that the west sent. I know because I've been there. The textbooks from the Communist era gave the impression that the west did nothing to help the Soviets until 1944, when we sent them a few boatloads of stuff. The people were surprised when I explained about the many 100's of ships that risked death in the Arctic taking supplies to Murmansk.

GreenBlue - I've seen the list, I didn't say that the lend lease did not play a huge role, but that the critical time for the soviets was before the spring of 1942. After that point it was inevitable that the Soviets would win, without lend lease it would just have been slower. (IMO) They fed propaganda to the west to make us think that they were about to collapse so that we would send more aid more quickly.

Soren · Nov 16, 2007

Im with Adler on this one.

IMO Hitler declaring war on the US whilst still fighting the USSR was what cost the Germans the war. You can only fight so many...

So in short, no, the US did NOT save Europe, Hitler did.

Did the US save Europe in WW2?

What language would Europe be speaking if the US stayed out in WW2?

Russian

German

Neither

Senior Airman

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Lieutenant Colonel

Pacific Historian

Major

Master Sergeant

Pacific Historian

Recruit

Master Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major

Tech Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Recruit

Senior Master Sergeant

Master Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads