Did the US save Europe in WW2?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

However, as far as I am concerned, the US played a very important role in Europe - but it was neither decisive nor did they "save" Europe. I would never deny their contribution, but neither would I over-estimate it.

Very well said.

 

[pbfoot]

Canada Australia New Zealand and South Africa were not part of the British Empire the Commonwealth yes Empire no

 

[syscom3]

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

Lend Lease is in play, with whatever is left over from the PTO going to the UK (which includes the commonwealth).

But the UK still has man power constraints which limits its ultimate fighting potential.

No matter how much material aid gets to the UK, you still dont have the man power to defeat Germany. Remember too, the RN needs lots of manpower to keep the sea lanes open (defensive operations, not directly threatening German industrial or military capacity), which isnt personell going to the RAF or BA (which are offensive compnants).

 

[syscom3]

That is the thing that you fail to realize. Not one single force could win the war by themselves. Without the Eastern Front the Germans would have been to powerful in the west. Without the Western Front, vice versa.

Read my posts again. It plainly says that the UK needed the US to win, but without the US, it wa simpossible. I also plainly stated that the Russians could have won the war by themselves, and Europe would be speaking Russian not German.

You let pride along with your arguement with pD cloud your judgement.

Quote me where I said the US single handidly won the war in Europe. I mearly said that without the US involvement, the UK wouldnt win. And without the US threat in 1943, then its possible the Germans could have beaten the Russians.

8)

Now after WW2, in the Cold War yes the US kept the rest of Europe from being under Soviet Control, that is true because there was no other military power other than the US that could stand up by itself against the Soviet, however if WW3 had broken out, it would have been a combined effort again.

This is about 1942. If the US stayed out of the fight, then the cold war would not have occured. All of Europe would either be under the domination of germany, or Stalinist Russia in which the US wouldnt have cared.

 

[amrit]

Canada Australia New Zealand and South Africa were not part of the British Empire the Commonwealth yes Empire no

Normally PB I would agree with you but in this instance I did mean the Empire countries (i.e. not the one's listed by you) - I should have been clearer. I'll expand on my meaning - most of the African nations within the Empire contributed some black troops, but there was real resistence from the local colonial adminstrators for further recruitment, especially for armed troops (as opposed to service corps). This was also reflected in South Africa, where blacks were only allowed to join non-combatant units. When blacks were allowed to act as combatants, as in Burma, they did very well.

There were also issues over recruiting in the Middle East. And in India, the pre-war system of only recruiting from the "martial" races meant that many volunteers were turned away, especially in the early years of the war.

With a tighter grip on the Foreign Office, Whitehall could have ended some of these discriminations, and hence increase the British army's manpower.

 

[syscom3]

No they are not. The PTO took up allied assets as well.

You can not pick and choose history to suit your personal agenda...

Nice try, but forget it.

Looks like your attempt at getting ay pD through this thread is backfiring in your face.

Youre right, the US would have used more of its assetts and materials in fighting the Japanese and not provided as much material aid to the Brits. Maybe even shift more of the destroyers in the Atlantic fleet to the Pacific and make the U-Boat war harder on the Brits?

And you cant get a grasp on what I am saying........

"The allies needed the US to win. The allies couldnt have won without the US. And only Russia had the capability to defeat Germany" (thus Russian spoken in Europe).

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And you cant get a grasp on what I am saying........

No I understnad fully where you are going with this. I have read eneogh of your posts on this forum and know how this thread started.

"The allies needed the US to win. The allies couldnt have won without the US. And only Russia had the capability to defeat Germany" (thus Russian spoken in Europe).

And the US could not have done it without the allies either....

 

[syscom3]

But serious, of course we (europeans) should be very thankfull for what the US did for us. But they were not alone. I think all forces, UK, UA, USSR, Canada etc. were nescessary, not the USA alone, so to say the USA saved Europa alone is a little too much credit, I think.

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.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

 

[lesofprimus]

Tough discussion.... Thing is, I have problems including Great Britain with Europe.... I think of it in terms of mainland Europe and the British Isles....

That being said, I feel that without US intervention, most if not all of mainland Europe would be speaking German, but I feel that the British would still be of their own accord.... I feel that the Germans could have beaten the Russians without the US getting into it, and could have also held onto France, Italy, Netherlands etc etc at the same time....

I dont think that the Germans could have effectively gotten across the Channel for the "Sealion" invasion....

I do feel that everyone is trying to jump on syscoms back on this... He has many valid points, but I will reiterate one thing.... He is not saying that the US did it all on their own... He knows thats not true....

Without US help, Germany most likely goes undefeated in this one...

 

[syscom3]

The UK alone did not have the resources true but if you factor in the Empire there was a lot of manpower available there that wasn't used to its full potential. There were possibilities to recruit millions in India and Africa to help bolster the fighting forces of Britain. There could of been enough to cover the lack of American troops. The problem would really be equipment and if lend-lease had continued there wouldn't of been a problem there either so in theory the British could of made an attempt on the continent without the help of the American army. Besides if Hitler after the defeat of France and the failure in the Battle of Britian withdrew most of his troops to Russia and the British caught the Germans by surprise with a landing as Hitler had underestimated the British then it would just be a case of the same as after D-day but without the Americans. If the British had utilised the manpower of the colonies - introduced conscription - they could of had more men than they had which could of made up for the lack of American personell (they still would of been their as observers though). In balance the British Empire could of invaded Europe without American manpower but not without American equipment. Besides the way it happened the Americans were part of a team and didn't 'win' the war in Europe singlehandedly without they it could of still happened - would of taken longer perhaps but it still would of happened. The Americans were needed more for their manufacturing capacity than for their manpower although the manpower was an added boost for the beleaguered British troops (despite the Empire) but the equipment supplied by the Americans was more of a boost than the manpower if Britain had been able to source more men from the Empire.

And how many years was it going to take to conscript, train and equip those troops? And all the while Germany (assuming Russia loses or just accepts an armistance) isnt sitting still, developing new weapons. And thats assuming that the US would provide a bottomliess pit of money and material for you, which would be problematic given that the US was not directly fighting in the war in Europe.

Plus if it was one thing that was demonstrated in France in 1944, the BA wasnt exactly known for its ability to fight a mobile war, the way the US, Russian and Germans knew how to do. Even an invasion of France without US involvement would have meant the defeat of your army.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Tough discussion.... Thing is, I have problems including Great Britain with Europe.... I think of it in terms of mainland Europe and the British Isles....

That being said, I feel that without US intervention, most if not all of mainland Europe would be speaking German, but I feel that the British would still be of their own accord.... I feel that the Germans could have beaten the Russians without the US getting into it, and could have also held onto France, Italy, Netherlands etc etc at the same time....

I dont think that the Germans could have effectively gotten across the Channel for the "Sealion" invasion....

I do feel that everyone is trying to jump on syscoms back on this... He has many valid points, but I will reiterate one thing.... He is not saying that the US did it all on their own... He knows thats not true....

Without US help, Germany most likely goes undefeated in this one...

I think most people are saying the same thing, it is just being shot passed one another.

I dont agree with syscoms complete assessment but I agree with part of it and I disagree with part of it.

 

[lesofprimus]

So lets shorten it up a bit....

As my last sentence implies, I feel that without US intervention in the ETO of WWII, Mainland Europe, for the most part, remains under German occupation....

Anyone agree or disagree???

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont think so. Russia would have moved west eventually. Russia was just to much for the Germans to chew off in my opinion.

 

[renrich]

Aside from all the other factors youall are mentioning, without the US in the war there is no doubt that Germany would not have been defeated in 1945. By 1946 the Germans would probably have had a nuclear device. The British and Russians would not. Is there any doubt that Hitler would have used it? Who wins then?

 

[Gnomey]

And how many years was it going to take to conscript, train and equip those troops? And all the while Germany (assuming Russia loses or just accepts an armistance) isnt sitting still, developing new weapons. And thats assuming that the US would provide a bottomliess pit of money and material for you, which would be problematic given that the US was not directly fighting in the war in Europe.

Plus if it was one thing that was demonstrated in France in 1944, the BA wasnt exactly known for its ability to fight a mobile war, the way the US, Russian and Germans knew how to do. Even an invasion of France without US involvement would have meant the defeat of your army.

Years but without a US timetable of events that wouldn't matter so much. The British could fight a mobile war if the commanders were right, most of the time the commanders were too cautious and didn't press on without stopping (like Patton). It wasn't that the British couldn't fight a mobile war it was just that the commanders were too cautious to fight one on the scale that Patton was doing it.

 

[Glider]

Had the US stayed out of Europe then I have to agree with those that say that Germany would not have been able to invade the UK and that the UK would not have been able to retake Europe from Germany.

Re Russia I do not believe that Russia would have been able to invade Germany without US aid either. To a large degree the war in Russia is one of logistics and the transport of those logistics to where they are needed. The USA gave Russia the trucks to move the supplies to the front and to a massive degree the material to build and run the railways to get the supplies from the factories to the depots close to the front.

I can see the UK being a larger version of Taiwan facing German held areas instead of China.

 

[bigZ]

A lot has been said about man power required to beat Germany. But didn't Finland manage to hold off Germany and Yugolsalvia make itself independent? So that puts kibosh on all of Europe speaking Russian or German. Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden neutral so I cant see these speaking German immediately.

Am sure without the US the war would have dragged on. But I don't think the 3rd Reich would have been sustainable.

Personally I am fedup of the glamourising of the whole German war effort. So they had sexy planes like the 262 and tanks like the panther. But a Tigers a pile of cr*p against a Typhoon rocket even when it has fuel and is in full working order. They wern't even a fully mechnised army, unlike the British and the US.

Guess the film when comparing the German Army to Napoleons retrea from Moscow?

"The carts.

They're using carts to move
their wounded and the supplies.

The carts came to me in my dream.
I couldn't figure it out.

Then I remembered. . .

. . .that nightmare in the snow.
The agonizing retreat from Moscow.

How cold it was.

They threw the wounded and what was
left of the supplies in the carts.

Napoleon was finished."

 

[mkloby]

A lot has been said about man power required to beat Germany. But didn't Finland manage to hold off Germany and Yugolsalvia make itself independent?

I'm not sure what you mean by that one...

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I am kinda wondering: If the USA had stayed out of the war, (maybe with Japan) and the Russians decided to invade Britain in say 1945-1946, would they have had more success than the Germans?

If Russia had tried to attack in a "Battle of Britain" style in 1940 instead of the Germans, would they have had any luck? Again, no US military to help.

I guess it's hard to say. I would be leaning towards the language being Russian today, instead of German. But of course, that may just hold for mainland Europe, not Britain.