Did the US save Europe in WW2?

[Soren]

Bill,

You can choose to ignore most of what is written in my posts or you can read it all.

Your small remarks such as "Facts Soren ???" are pretty worthless and really don't even deserve an answer, so please refrain from using these again.

And as to what proof do I have that the loss of Stalingrad would've cost the Russians the war, well first off Stalin said so himself, secondly he was so desperate about holding the city which had his name on it that he threw everything he had at it. Third had the Germans first secured Stalingrad it would've been all over for the Russians, thats as clear as the sky on a cloudless day, as the left flank was then secured and the German army could continue to push on over open terrain where the Russians stood little chance against the German juggernaut. It was whilst fighting in the large Urban areas that the Germans lost the bulk of their men as the Soviets could negate the German advantage in weapons and machines in these areas, where'as on the other hand they were at an almost complete loss against the Germans everytime the fight took place on the open plains of the Russian countryside. So the Soviets did right in doing their outmost to keep their cities, turning them into deathtraps, but had they lost Stalingrad, their last bastion, it would've been all over the for the USSR and quickly at that.

Study the war in east abit and you'll see that I aint being unreasonable in my assumptions.


Now please let us refrain from using any insults or patronizing remarks about each others arguments. Lets keep this a debate.

 

[Freebird]

Freebird why slither around the facts ?

Fact is Army Group Center suffered so much from winter cold that 60% was out of action! Are you just going to ignore this as even a factor ??

Can you cite any source that says 60% of Army Group center was out of action IN NOVEMBER?

Sorry but your theory that the lack of winterclothes wasn't the problem is far fetched, firstly because a large part of the forces committed were out of action for this very reason, and secondly had the German troops been fully supplied with winterclothes from the start there'd be no encirclement.

The weather on the 19th of Nov was not cold enough to cause what you are suggesting. The reason they were surrounded was that the Soviets had built up a massive counter-stroke, and sent it against the Germans weak allies.

The forces were not "out of action" on Nov 19, when they were encircled. It was not the German line that broke, it was the Rumanians. Did they lack winter clothes too? And the Italians? I will grant you that by mid december lack of winter clothes was a problem, but by then it is already too late. The lack of winter clothing increased the deaths at Stalingrad, but was not the cause. The problems at Stalingrad were that Paulus was a poor General, and Hitler was a poor commander. If the Germans had tried to break out right away, it might have worked, but in any case it would not produce a victory in the battle.

 

[Glider]

Actually, if we were neutral and on a cash and carry basis we could have done well supplying Japan and Germany if France and Britain chose not to buy anything.. when I said No aid - I meant no Loans/Lend Lease/buy now/Pay later..

As to being 'not nearly as well developed', I would say not as far along but we had started building our base in 1939 and, even with Britain/France purchases, we were Still in woeful situation in late 1941.

If Japan had sent the third wave to destroy the POL and Sub base at Pearl AND caught our carriers at anchor - we would not have been able to stop them at Midway nor kept Hawaian Islands (IMO).

No, this scenario implies that we may well be standing alone in 1945 had we been successful at sticking our heads in the sand.

Its an interesting idea but there are some questions.

Firstly you wouldn't have sold anything to the Germans. After all, how were they going to get the purchases home?
Secondly, you wouldn't have sold anything to the Japanese. There was a huge level of tension between the USA and Japan over its invasion of China and there was a fuel embargo between the two countries which is one reason why Japan attacked the USA. Trading with Japan would have been similar to trading strategic assets with Russia at the height of the Cold War, I just don't see it happening.
Thirdly, the only reason why the USA started bulding its base in 1939 was because of the weapons purchases of the UK and France.

The ties with the UK and its willingness to give the USA information about the lessons learnt in the war also had a bearing on the aircraft had a significant impact on the aircraft being designed for the USA. Clearly there wouldn't have been any P51's. The USA were originally going to replace the P43 with the P44, it was mainly the result of lessons learnt in Europe that the P47 was commissioned. When you compare the unarmoured P44's, P40's and P39's against Fw190's, 109G's, Spit IX's in 1942, the difference is clear. Of course you had the P38, but on its own it would struggle aginst the lighter types.
As for Japan, the delay could easily have seen the main Ki43 replaced with the far more effective Ki44 which would give the American fighters a very hard time whilst at sea the Zero would still face off against the Wildcat.

As for standing alone I believe the UK would still be there, on the defensive but still around. The co operation would be delayed by a year or so, but it would still have taken place.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The problem was not Goering, the problem was that the LW did not have the capability in transport to supply the army.

There is no evidence that the loss of Stalingrad would have any effect on the morale, any more than the loss of Kharkov, Kiev, Rostov or any other city.

The capture of Stalingrad does nothing for the Germans, it was just a ruse by the Russians to keep the 6th army tied down while they built up for a large counter-attack.

There is no huge loss of prisoners at Stalingrad if the Germans take it, the Russians are not encircled at that time, and there will be no great movement in the winter anyways.

The oilfields are not "for the taking" as already stated at this point Army group B is desperately trying to fill the hole in the Italian army, let alone even thinking of an offensive.

USSR falls apart in a couple of months? Are you kidding?

I agree.

I enjoy discussing this with people who want to discuss it objectively and without a clouded mind. 8)

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Freebird why slither around the facts ?

Fact is Army Group Center suffered so much from winter cold that 60% was out of action! Are you just going to ignore this as even a factor ??

Sorry but your theory that the lack of winterclothes wasn't the problem is far fetched, firstly because a large part of the forces committed were out of action for this very reason, and secondly had the German troops been fully supplied with winterclothes from the start there'd be no encirclement.

No Soren the lack of winter clothes was a big problem. It was however not the only reason why they lost the battle.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Your small remarks such as "Facts Soren ???" are pretty worthless and really don't even deserve an answer, so please refrain from using these again.

Why is that Soren?

All he is asking for is facts. That is all that everyone asks from you.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The forces were not "out of action" on Nov 19, when they were encircled. It was not the German line that broke, it was the Rumanians. Did they lack winter clothes too? And the Italians? I will grant you that by mid december lack of winter clothes was a problem, but by then it is already too late. The lack of winter clothing increased the deaths at Stalingrad, but was not the cause. The problems at Stalingrad were that Paulus was a poor General, and Hitler was a poor commander. If the Germans had tried to break out right away, it might have worked, but in any case it would not produce a victory in the battle.

I will certainly agree with that as well. Winter Clothing however in November is a must in that part of Russia.

 

[Freebird]

I will certainly agree with that as well. Winter Clothing however in November is a must in that part of Russia.

Well I must admit I was a little surprised when he mentioned winter clothing, after all the German Army suffered from that problem in the winter of 1941, how could they be unprepared a year later? Unbelievable ineptitude!!! But I googled it, and he was right, many suffered from lack of warm clothes. However, in mid November it was cold, but not nearly as cold as Dec&Jan in 1941/1942, when the Germans were pushed back from Moscow.

From the accounts I found, of a Rumanian soldier, "Nov 19 will live in my memory as a day of black disaster, At the break of dawn on this gloomy foggy day in late Autumn..." He writes how the Russians attacked from both flanks, but he does NOT complain that they were freezing to death at that point.

I think my argument was that the German army was over-extended, this was the main problem, not the winter clothes. they had pushed too many battalions into the Stalingrad "meat-grinder" and had left the army flanks to the weaker Rumanian army Italian army. The next mistake was not having the 6th army try to break out immediately, before the really cold weather lack of supplies became a problem. However, Hitler would not allow his troops to retreat, he did not want to give up Stalingrad. By the time of Hoth's attempt to break the siege a month later it was too late for the 6th to break out, (no fuel, ammo, food etc.) and at this time the bitter cold killed many 1,000's

 

[drgondog]

Its an interesting idea but there are some questions.

Firstly you wouldn't have sold anything to the Germans. After all, how were they going to get the purchases home?
Secondly, you wouldn't have sold anything to the Japanese. There was a huge level of tension between the USA and Japan over its invasion of China and there was a fuel embargo between the two countries which is one reason why Japan attacked the USA. Trading with Japan would have been similar to trading strategic assets with Russia at the height of the Cold War, I just don't see it happening.
Thirdly, the only reason why the USA started bulding its base in 1939 was because of the weapons purchases of the UK and France.

Glider - I agree the first two points but trying to illustrate a 'totally neutral' posture toward Axis - when we all know that most Americans were disposed to helping Britain and China

On the last point I totally disagree. The key aircraft ordered by US Gov't before WWII started were B-24, F4U, P-38. The key aircraft ordered before Battle of Britain were B-29 (late 1939) and P-47 (June 1940) and P-51 (may 1940).

The impetus for the B-29 and P-47 was in part Charles Lindbergh's report of German aircraft capability while observing in 1938 and US Army belief that we may end up fighting Germany without Britain - before end of 1939. Seversky realized the P-43 was not the answer to high altitude performance

I would be willing to keep an open mind about 'lessons learned' from Britain in the development but not much in the intiation of any of those programs. Even the 51 was based simply on Britain needing P-40s', Curtiss was fully maxed out and NAA asked by Brits to tool up. Kindleberger said ' I have a better idea and can get them to you before I can tool up for P-40" - this all before BoB.

The ties with the UK and its willingness to give the USA information about the lessons learnt in the war also had a bearing on the aircraft had a significant impact on the aircraft being designed for the USA. Clearly there wouldn't have been any P51's.

Probably true - except for friendly Cash and Carry policy as suggested above and certainly for P-59 and P-80..and airborne radar and sonar/anti sub advances.. but what else

The USA were originally going to replace the P43 with the P44, it was mainly the result of lessons learnt in Europe that the P47 was commissioned. When you compare the unarmoured P44's, P40's and P39's against Fw190's, 109G's, Spit IX's in 1942, the difference is clear. Of course you had the P38, but on its own it would struggle aginst the lighter types.

The decision was made on P-47 by Seversky - it is questionable how much Brit advise versus powers of observation had in scrapping P-44.. and we probably aren't in the war as strictly 'neutrals' in 1942. Yes we had the P-38 and the F4U in 1941, operational in 1942 - make your own decisions how well we could have done with only those two in evolutionary development and focus? Ditto on B-29 as primary bomber

As for Japan, the delay could easily have seen the main Ki43 replaced with the far more effective Ki44 which would give the American fighters a very hard time whilst at sea the Zero would still face off against the Wildcat.

See above re: F4U and P-38 - but Ki44 was excellent. Do Japanes develop it until they find Zero worthless? We are still not in war yet?

As for standing alone I believe the UK would still be there, on the defensive but still around. The co operation would be delayed by a year or so, but it would still have taken place.

Glider - Nobody has more respect for the fight Britain made against the Germans. Nor for thye technology contributions to US war fighting ability.

My questions are solely about getting the tonnage of food, oil and war material to Britain (and USSR) and keeping the supply lines open without US Merchant fleet, USN and USAAF and RAF Coastal Command flying B-24s in those critical months to help defeat the U-boats.

I don't say "no", I say I don't know "how".

Regards,

Bill

 

[drgondog]

Bill,

You can choose to ignore most of what is written in my posts or you can read it all.

I read all of it

Your small remarks such as "Facts Soren ???" are pretty worthless and really don't even deserve an answer, so please refrain from using these again.

These are pasky things that often refute your assertions.. there is a difference between a well reasoned opinion with an assembly of facts versus an 'irrefutable assertion' which is your trademark.. you made comments about advancing the state of the Me 262 for example based on USSR losing at Stalingrad - and immediate exploitation of resource rich Russia... I didn't see how you went from A to Z much less A to B in your proposition

So, one more time I asked for facts and one more time you wave your arms and move on - without fact proposition.

And as to what proof do I have that the loss of Stalingrad would've cost the Russians the war, well first off Stalin said so himself, secondly he was so desperate about holding the city which had his name on it that he threw everything he had at it. Third had the Germans first secured Stalingrad it would've been all over for the Russians, thats as clear as the sky on a cloudless day, as the left flank was then secured and the German army could continue to push on over open terrain where the Russians stood little chance against the German juggernaut.

So, let us suppose that by some miracle von Paulus pushed the Soviets back across the river, say in January - continue with your irrefutable logic that "as clear as sky on a cloudless day". Tell us a.) about the reserves available to cross the river and secure an unassailable bridgehead, and b.) continue the push to the oilfields in the dead of winter? If you don't like the word 'facts', try logic?

It was whilst fighting in the large Urban areas that the Germans lost the bulk of their men as the Soviets could negate the German advantage in weapons and machines in these areas, where'as on the other hand they were at an almost complete loss against the Germans everytime the fight took place on the open plains of the Russian countryside. So the Soviets did right in doing their outmost to keep their cities, turning them into deathtraps, but had they lost Stalingrad, their last bastion, it would've been all over the for the USSR and quickly at that.

How quick is "at that'??

All along I labored under the false impression USSR still had bastions like Moscow and Leningrad still intact and all of their manufacturing base and resources intact - how did your guys magically transpose those to 'captured"?? Where did I miss that in my studies of the Eastern conflict? Are these facts you want to discount - or just ignore?

Study the war in east abit and you'll see that I aint being unreasonable in my assumptions.

So far you are 'not unreasonable', just unfounded, in your assumptions - unless you have facts relatinng to German ability to push on to victory after pushing the Russians out of Stalingrad?

Now please let us refrain from using any insults or patronizing remarks about each others arguments. Lets keep this a debate.

Just in this post I identified a couple of patronizing remarks, here are a couple more:

Study the war in east abit and you'll see that I aint being unreasonable in my assumptions.

Your small remarks such as "Facts Soren ???" are pretty worthless and really don't even deserve an answer, so please refrain from using these again.

By any chance do you know what 'patronizing' means?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Just in this post I identified a couple of patronizing remarks, here are a couple more:

Study the war in east abit and you'll see that I aint being unreasonable in my assumptions.

Your small remarks such as "Facts Soren ???" are pretty worthless and really don't even deserve an answer, so please refrain from using these again.

By any chance do you know what 'patronizing' means?

Thats the problem with Soren. If you read almost any of his posts in any thread and you will see these kind of remarks.

He believes it is okay for him to do it (I dont think he realizes he is doing it) but as soon as someone gives him a taste of his own medicine they are rude and patronizing him....

 

[drgondog]

Thats the problem with Soren. If you read almost any of his posts in any thread and you will see these kind of remarks.

He believes it is okay for him to do it (I dont think he realizes he is doing it) but as soon as someone gives him a taste of his own medicine they are rude and patronizing him....

Chris - the trigger seems to be one of us challenging one of his many 'irrefutable' statements - as if all should be taken without question because he says it is so...

I make mistakes and try to acknowledge them - and if pressed for more facts or reasons, either supply them or admit I don't have any more.

I am also guilty of sarcasm and not always successful at holding it back - not such a good quality of my own

 

[syscom3]

So lets look at the war in the east without US involvement period.

I dont think the commonwealth could invade Italy before 1944, so could the Germans use the men and material from that theater, and change their fortunes in Russia in 1943?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am not sure if the Germans would have been willing to leave themselves unprotected to the south.

 

[drgondog]

So lets look at the war in the east without US involvement period.

I dont think the commonwealth could invade Italy before 1944, so could the Germans use the men and material from that theater, and change their fortunes in Russia in 1943?

Two other interesting questions: Absent any military involvement by US, or immediate threat of it - but Japan attacking in East in December 1941 does Australian government successfully pull Australian 9th Division from Middle East? They played a crucial role in the fight when it could have gone either way.

Could the Germans re-inforce Rommel in 1942? Could the U-boat fleet be partially deployed to attack RN in Med with greater success? If so, what is fate of Commonwealth armies in Africa if cut off/blockaded in Med and western Africa?

As to Commonwealth attacking Italy, would they ever have attacked Italy at all when Churchill was so focused on Balkans? Does Commonwealth prevail there? If so it would be crucial blow to continue into Ploesti and cut off supplies there. If not, then Europe is held entirely by Germany and the outcome of USSR and Germany fight determines fate of Europe.

 

[Freebird]

Two other interesting questions: Absent any military involvement by US, or immediate threat of it - but Japan attacking in East in December 1941 does Australian government successfully pull Australian 9th Division from Middle East? They played a crucial role in the fight when it could have gone either way.

Could the Germans re-inforce Rommel in 1942? Could the U-boat fleet be partially deployed to attack RN in Med with greater success? If so, what is fate of Commonwealth armies in Africa if cut off/blockaded in Med and western Africa?

As to Commonwealth attacking Italy, would they ever have attacked Italy at all when Churchill was so focused on Balkans? Does Commonwealth prevail there? If so it would be crucial blow to continue into Ploesti and cut off supplies there. If not, then Europe is held entirely by Germany and the outcome of USSR and Germany fight determines fate of Europe.

I seriously doubt that the Japanese would attack in 1941 or 1942, the main reason that they did is that the US embargo forced them to. There was a sizable part of the Japanese war Cabinet that was against it even then. Remember that they were heavily engaged in China at the time. If they had access to US, British Dutch supplies they would continue their consolidation for another 18 - 24 months at least.

Churchill may have had ideas about the Balkans, but the Chiefs of Staff had a better understanding of this, and were focused on clearing up the Med knocking Italy out of the war. (remember that the Italian government fell before even 1 Allied soldier landed on mainland Italy!)

Churchill rarely over-ruled the CoS committee, mainly because if an operation failed and it became known that he ordered it in spite of the Chiefs opinion, he could have lost the confidence of the house.

Thats one of the main differences between US UK military policy. (but thats another thread!)

 

[Glider]

Bill

The impetus for the B-29 and P-47 was in part Charles Lindbergh's report of German aircraft capability while observing in 1938 and US Army belief that we may end up fighting Germany without Britain - before end of 1939. Seversky realized the P-43 was not the answer to high altitude performance
Certainly agree re the B29 but the P47 was I understood the result of lessons learnt after the war started.
However I over simplified the point re support of the USA infrastructure, my mistake.
The point about the British and French orders being important to the build up of the US infrastructure. US aircraft orders were small by European standards which is understandable but advanced designs were being progressed. The production facilities were built up on the back of the European orders. FInancially the US manufactures were in trouble when France fell. Curtis and Douglas in particular were in serious danger of collapse, they had invested huge sums in the creation of the factories but with France gone, there was no money coming in to pay for them. This was a key factor in the UK's decision to take on all the French orders, even if they were aircraft such as the Maryland, that we originally had no interest in.

Probably true - except for friendly Cash and Carry policy as suggested above and certainly for P-59 and P-80..and airborne radar and sonar/anti sub advances.. but what else
Be fair, its not a bad starting list . The UK also urged the USA to take on board the 20mm and 40mm AA guns, the 6pd AT gun, plus others that the USA didn't pursue such as the Bren Gun and of all things even the Biro pen which became a prized target of 'borrowing' later in the war.

My questions are solely about getting the tonnage of food, oil and war material to Britain (and USSR) and keeping the supply lines open without US Merchant fleet, USN and USAAF and RAF Coastal Command flying B-24s in those critical months to help defeat the U-boats.

I understand and certainly don't take your comments as being a criticism. I believe that the UK could have reduced the losses in the Merchant marine to acceptable levels, but only if decisions were made that were not made at the time. The biggest of these being the release of long range bomber aircraft from Bomber Command to Coastal Command. The situation would have been helped by the concentration of our naval forces in the Med and Atlantic. The increased numbers and reduction in loss and damage to air attack would have also helped availability.
On my first posting I described this as my nightmare scenario as I truely do not believe that the decisions that would need to have been taken, would have been taken.

 

[Glider]

Two other interesting questions: Absent any military involvement by US, or immediate threat of it - but Japan attacking in East in December 1941 does Australian government successfully pull Australian 9th Division from Middle East? They played a crucial role in the fight when it could have gone either way.

With the UK concentrating on the Med and Atlantic, then yes I believe they could have been extracted.

Could the Germans re-inforce Rommel in 1942?

Only if he didn't attack Russia.

Could the U-boat fleet be partially deployed to attack RN in Med with greater success? If so, what is fate of Commonwealth armies ive expanded their n Africa if cut off/blockaded in Med and western Africa?

Again the awnser I believe is no. The U Boats were fully employed in the Atlantic. They could have sent more to the Med but only if they reduced their effort in the Atlantic. Its also worth remembering that the Med is a dangerous place for Subs. Its shallow and there are plenty of aircraft around to give cover.

 

[drgondog]

I seriously doubt that the Japanese would attack in 1941 or 1942, the main reason that they did is that the US embargo forced them to. There was a sizable part of the Japanese war Cabinet that was against it even then. Remember that they were heavily engaged in China at the time. If they had access to US, British Dutch supplies they would continue their consolidation for another 18 - 24 months at least.

That makes sense - also giving Britain time to reinforce PTO had they chosen to do so... but as Japan was allied with Axis do they keep hands off there also? I mean Hitler hardly failed to notice that Japan was (prudently) not piling on the USSR from the East - would he have any leverage in getting the Japanese to attack GB and the Dutch?

Churchill may have had ideas about the Balkans, but the Chiefs of Staff had a better understanding of this, and were focused on clearing up the Med knocking Italy out of the war. (remember that the Italian government fell before even 1 Allied soldier landed on mainland Italy!)

Did Britain have the capability to knock Italy out of the war - even given a direct attack on Italy bypassing Sicily? An awful lot of US presence in Med made it practical - but without US?

QUOTE]
Good points Freebird.. so, lets say that Japan doesn't attack US or GB/Commonwealth in 1941-1942 but consolidates and builds more carriers and subs now that they are no longer constrained..

US strictly neutral but will sell and load (only) all petroleum/food and war materials on British and Canadian vessels. No escort, no patrols, etc.

Does Britain have the capability to a.) import from US b.) import from Suez, c.) import from SA and even around Africa..

Does US abstinance from U-Boat campaign significantly weaken Britain's ability to keep sea lanes open (both ways- to and from battlefields for example).. if yes, to what extent does Britain pull back from any of its engagements with Germany. I know we made no significant difference in 1940-1942 except for replacement of hulls and crews and war material, and introduction of long range patrols and Finally USN support beyond Greenland and Iceland. Canada and GB doing heavy lifting on escort in that time..

What about US based training of commonwealth pilots free of interference from Germany, provision of replacement vessels (and cargo) of U-boat sinkings, capacity of British based shipyards and labor force dedication to rebuilding fleet attrition, etc.

I just remain unconvinced that Britain had the manufacturing capacity to replace enough sunk cargo vessels to carry the supplies or for that matter continue to progress land battles from Africa to Continent.

But I have been wrong before.

 

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by drgondog
Two other interesting questions: Absent any military involvement by US, or immediate threat of it - but Japan attacking in East in December 1941 does Australian government successfully pull Australian 9th Division from Middle East? They played a crucial role in the fight when it could have gone either way.

With the UK concentrating on the Med and Atlantic, then yes I believe they could have been extracted.

Actually the Aust. Government had a hard time trying to recall its forces from the Middle East. Churchill was against the idea but intense pressure from the Aust, Prime Minister, John Curtin, saw the 6th and 7th Divisions returned home in '42. However Churchill ordered the convoy to Burma against the will and knowledge of the Aust. Government. Owing to more pressure applied by Curtin, these Divisions eventually made it to Australia (minus a few Infantry Brigades deployed to Ceylon and Java) where they quickly deployed to new Guinea. The 9th Division didn't return home untill '43 where they too were deployed to New Guinea. It must be remembered that it was the inexperianced and ill equipped Australian Militia that was doing the fighting in the early days in New Guinea. This is why the Australian Government was screaming out to have its battle hardened Divisions returned home from the Middle East. After the loss of the entire 8th Division at singapore, we were virtually undefended (the majority of the RAAF and RAN were also overseas). IMO the fact that Churchill was willing to abandon Australia and deal with our problems after the Germans had been defeated doesn't sit well with me. We were willing to send all we had in the Defence of England and in the fight against tyranny, yet in our hour of need Churchill basically turned his back at us, hence why Australia turned to America.