Did the US save Europe in WW2?

I am not saying either side is right but here are some Canadian facts:

During the Second World War, Canadian industries manufactured war materials and other supplies for Canada, the United States, Britain, and other Allied countries. The total value of Canadian war production was almost $10 billion - approximately $100 billion in today's dollars.

The Canadian contribution began early and made a crucial difference to the winning of the war. For a nation of 11 million people it was an incredible accomplishment.

Canadian industrial production during the Second World war.

* 11 billion dollars of munitions
* 1.7 million small arms
* 43,000 heavy guns
* 16,000 aircraft
* 2 million tonnes of explosives
* 815,000 military vehicles, 50,000 tanks and armoured gun carriers
* 9,000 boats and ships
*
Anti-tank and field artillery
*
Naval guns
*
Small arms and automatic weapons
*
Radar sets and Electronics
*
Synthetic rubber
*
Uranium for the 'Manhattan Project'

Canada was faced with the challenge of creating - practically from scratch - a strong industrial base to produce weapons and war materials for the war effort. Canadian industry and the workforce of our country stepped up with an amazing response to this situation and helped contribute to the Allied victory in the war.

* It established C. D. Howe's Department of Munitions and Supply and the Wartime Industries Control Board, both in the spring of 1940, and applied tough wage and price controls in 1941.
* It lent money to Britain interest-free, gave it a gift of war supplies in January 1942 and then donated surplus production to Canada's allies through the Canadian Mutual Aid Board.

Canadian war factories were safe from bombing. Canada became an arsenal, and was Britain's chief overseas supplier of war materiel.

Canada did not accept American Lend-Lease aid. Actually Canada ran its own lend-lease program for its allies called "Mutual Aid", supplying its allies with four billion dollars worth of war materiel. A further credit of a billion dollars was given to Britain.

By 1945 Canada's war production was fourth among the Allied nations, less only than that of the United States, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom. Only some 30% of this was needed for Canada's armed forces: the remainder went overseas.

Another of the most important was the mass production of 815,729 military vehicles, including 45,710 armoured vehicles. Canadian-made vehicles were crucial in equipping the British Eighth Army in North Africa and Italy. Canada also produced rifles, submachine guns, light machine guns, antitank guns and antiaircraft guns, as well as the multipurpose 25-pounder artillery piece.

* Britain had entered the war with 80,000 military vehicles of all types; however, 75,000 of these British vehicles were left behind in the evacuation at Dunkirk in 1940. Virtually defenceless on the ground, Britain turned to Canada - and particularly the Canadian auto industry - to replace what had been lost. Canada not only replaced these losses, it did much more.
* Canadian industry produced over 800,000 military transport vehicles, 50,000 tanks, 40,000 field, naval, and anti-aircraft guns, and 1,700,000 small arms.
* Of the 800,000 military vehicles of all types built in Canada, 168,000 were issued to Canadian forces. Thirty-eight percent of the total Canadian production went to the British. The remainder of the vehicles went to the other Allies. This meant that the Canadian Army 'in the field' had a ratio of one vehicle for every three soldiers, making it the most mechanized field force in the war.
* The Bombardier company of Valcourt, Quebec, built over 150 military snowmobiles. General Motors developed a frame for another snowmobile, of which 300 were built.
* Canadian Pacific Railway constructed 788 Valentine tanks in its Angus shop in Montreal; its engine was built by General Motors. 5,200 tanks had been built at C.P. Angus and Montreal Locomotive Company shops by the end of the war.
* 2,150 twenty-five pounder "Sexton" self-propelled guns were built by Montreal Locomotive Works.
* A heavy utility vehicle body was developed in Canada. Four-thousand such vehicles were manufactured by General Motors in Oshawa. This vehicle body could be mounted on a 4x4 chassis and could, with slight modifications, be used as a personnel carrier, ambulance, light wireless, truck or machinery truck.

After the fall of France in May 1940, it became a priority to enlarge the Allies merchant shipping fleet, to replace ships lost, and to make sure that there were naval escort vessels to guard convoys against German submarines. Britain was highly vulnerable, and North American arms and supplies were a lifeline.

Canada in 1940 had just started to build patrol vessels for the protection of its own coasts, but Britain soon placed orders for 26 ten-thousand-tonne cargo ships and soon after orders for naval escorts and minesweepers. This was just the beginning, as Britain made clear it needed Canada to build as many naval and merchant ships as it possibly could. The practically non-existent Canadian interwar shipbuilding industry - three shipyards employing fewer than 4,000 men - expanded to 90 plants on the East and West Coasts, the Great Lakes and even inland. More than 126,000 men and women were employed.

* Canadian shipyards built 4,047 naval vessels
* Built 300 anti-submarine warships
* 4 Tribal class destroyers
* 410 cargo ships

At its wartime peak in September 1943, the industry was able to deliver the ten-thousand-tonne SS Fort Romaine in a stunning 58 days from the start of construction.

There were 348, ten thousand-ton, merchant ships built in Canada during the war. Large and relatively slow, but reliable and easily adapted to a variety of cargoes, these ships and those who sailed on them ensured the delivery of much of Canada's war production.

* During 1941, the first of the large 10,000 ton merchant ships were taking an average of 307 days to build (and up to 426 days in one case). One year later, average production time had dropped to 163 days (with one ship being produced in a record 112 days).
* Some 57,000 individuals were employed in merchant shipbuilding and a further 27,000 worked in naval shipbuilding, which included building vessels like destroyers, frigates, corvettes, and minesweepers.

During the Second World War, the Canadian aircraft industry grew to employ nearly 120,000 workers, 30,000 of whom were women.

* It delivered 16,418 aircraft to fill Allied orders, chiefly from Britain and the United States, but also for use by the RCAF and BCATP.
* Before the war, there had been only eight small plants in the entire country, making about forty aeroplanes annually.
* The famous Avro Lancaster bomber rolled off the assembly line at Malton, Ont., now the site of Lester B. Pearson International Airport.

Canadian aviation industries manufactured parts for huge bombers and fighter aircraft like the Wasp, Mosquito, and Hawker Hurricane (whose laminated fuselages were made of wood harvested from the forests of British Columbia).

* Production in the aircraft industry went from extremely low levels before the war to 4,000 military aircraft a year by the end of the war.
* Canadian factory space for the production of aircraft increased from 500,000 square feet before the war to a high of 14,000,000 square feet at its peak during the war.
* Canadian industry pulled together to a great degree in many different ways and cooperated a great deal to produce vitally-needed war materials. For example, the contract to produce 1,100 Mosquito fighter-bombers was awarded to De Havilland, but they only did the final assembly. General Motors made the fuselages, Massey Ferguson made the wings, Boeing made the tailplanes, the flaps were made by Canadian Power Boat Company, and the undercarriages were built by Otaco. Numerous other smaller companies were also involved in producing other parts for this aircraft as well.

syscom3 said:

No one doubts the technical and scientific ability of the RN to combat the U-Boat threat. The question is if the RN had enough assetts to protect all of the convoys.

Click to expand...

Using UBOAT.NET I make it about
310 Frigates
366 corvettes
144 destroyers (exWW1 and prewar A-I class) excludes fleet and ex USA vessels
266 anti Submarine trawlers
218 fleet minsweepers often used as A/S vessels

That makes it about 1300 convoy escorts. Plus 260 Canadian escorts.

As mentioned a number of times this would be concentrated on the Atlantic and Med. This makes the posibility of being able to support the convoys as being pretty good, particulary if Bomber Command can let them have some of the long range bombers in support.

As for Japan, if they were going to attack they would have done it when German or Italy declared war.

Hunter368 said:

75% of what we talk about here is pure speculation at best. Syscom perhaps 85% speculation. This whole thread idea is pure speculation at best. Syscom (or you) cannot prove that USA saved Europe and PlanD cannot prove that Commonwealth with Russia could of won by themselves.

It's all speculation at best.

Click to expand...

Many people have proven that the Commonwealth couldnt have defeated Germany without the manpower and industrial esorces of the US.

Just as the US couldnt have defeated the Germans alone, the Commonwealth couldnt either.

syscom3 said:

Many people have proven that the Commonwealth couldnt have defeated Germany without the manpower and industrial esorces of the US.

Just as the US couldnt have defeated the Germans alone, the Commonwealth couldnt either.

Click to expand...

Hmmm seems that's what I have saying from the beginning. I am glad to see you actually put in print.

By the way my comment about you using 85% speculation was not a shot at you, you just like to start these "what if" type threads or enter into pure speculation type chats. No offense was meant towards you.

Hunter368 said:

Hmmm seems that's what I have saying from the beginning.

Click to expand...

So who wins the war? Russia or Germnay?

Hunter368 said:

75% of what we talk about here is pure speculation at best. Syscom perhaps 85% speculation. This whole thread idea is pure speculation at best. Syscom (or you) cannot prove that USA saved Europe and PlanD cannot prove that Commonwealth with Russia could of won by themselves.

It's all speculation at best.

Click to expand...

A tip O' the hat to ya, Hunter - I have exhausted my speculations and retiring from the field on this one

drgondog said:

A tip O' the hat to ya, Hunter - I have exhausted my speculations and retiring from the field on this one

Click to expand...

Thats exactly why I get involved in these types of threads so little.......they just go around and around and around. Nobody proves anything beyond shadow of a doubt. Just people going in the same circle over and over again.

But I must admit I do watch them, because a person can learn the odd fact here and there that they never knew before.

syscom3 said:

So who wins the war? Russia or Germnay?

Click to expand...

Well I did miss understand one of your comments a few pages before, so I let me ask you to first define the limits of your question before I answer it.

- No USA lend lease or military help to Europe (UK and Russia)?

- USA and Japan fight it out between themselves from 41-45 still? Thus no UK forces fighting Japan then in Asia? Or is UK still fighting vs Japan also? Thus no A-bomb can be used vs Germany?

- UK and Germany still at war in 39?

- BoB still happens as it did in real life?

- No USA in North Africa?

-Germany still has to wait until 41 to invade Russia?

-Russia and UK still Allies?

-Axis powers (in Europe) stay the same as in WW2? Or is it All Axis including Japan vs Russia and UK? (or is Japan not included b/c she is fighting USA only?)

Please answer those questions before I give you an answer.

I do believe most of the questions you ask are already in the thread

pbfoot said:

I do believe most of the questions you ask are already in the thread

Click to expand...

I know but some were asked by other people then Syscom, Syscom is asking for my opinion directly.....before I answer "him" I want to know by which set of rules are we playing.

Some people were assuming different things, I just want him and me to be on the same page....before I give my opinion.

Comparing apples to apples then.

Hunter368 said:

Well I did miss understand one of your comments a few pages before, so I let me ask you to first define the limits of your question before I answer it.

Basically Bill asked if Britain could have survived without USA. I also posted that they would have to manage to keep USSR in the war (for at least 18 months) otherwise Germany conquers all of Europe

- No USA lend lease or military help to Europe (UK and Russia)?

None at all.

- USA and Japan fight it out between themselves from 41-45 still?

USA not involved at all. Japan does not attack at Pearl.

USA does not embargo Japan, the Dutch are not pressured by US to refuse to sell to Japan. so the Japanese may decide to attack UK/Dutch colonies, but almost certainly not before about late '42 - mid '43 (the Japanese army wanted to finish China first, they only attacked US/UK in '41 because of the oil embargo)

Thus no UK forces fighting Japan then in Asia?

Not in 1941/42

Or is UK still fighting vs Japan also? Thus no A-bomb can be used vs Germany?

No A-bomb (would make the whole scenario moot...)

- UK and Germany still at war in 39?

Yes

- BoB still happens as it did in real life?

Yes assume that everything up to Nov 1940 happens as it did. (BoF, BoB) In Bill's scenario Roosevelt loses the Nov '40 election and the Pres. elect announces that he will cut off all sales of military supplies after his Jan 1941 inaugeration. The US will not offer any A/S or patrol assistance in the Atlantic to the Allies, nor will they garrison Iceland

- No USA in North Africa?

Nope.

-Germany still has to wait until 41 to invade Russia?

Assume that Hitler follows his plan, invades Greece/Yugoslavia in April 1941, USSR on June 22 1941. The Germans follow the same strategy, unless something the British do causes a difference. (eg. the British don't go to Greece, but kick the Italians out of Africa in '41)

-Russia and UK still Allies?

Yes, assume that Russian strategy is as historical, so if they get less lend lease it will affect them negatively.

-Axis powers (in Europe) stay the same as in WW2?

Yes
Or is it All Axis including Japan vs Russia and UK? (or is Japan not included b/c she is fighting USA only?)

Japan would not enter into it in 1942, unless the British/Dutch strip most of their defence from S.E. asia. Otherwise assume that they keep up the war against the Chinese. Assume that the japanese DO NOT sign a treaty with USSR, so the Russians cannot use the 10 - 12 divisions from Soviet Far East for the Dec 1941 defence of Moscow

Please answer those questions before I give you an answer.

Click to expand...

Hope that answers your Q's...

Yes it does thanks. I will think about it.

This how I see things panning out.

1) The Japanese attack Pearl Harbor as planned, with a US and britiah declaration of war the next day.

2) Germany refuses to declare war on the US, with the US not wanting to declare war untill Germany does it first. Either way, neither country trusts each other and a semi-beligerent status is maintained.

3) The US declares the Western Atlantic is declared a "German" free zone and the USN and USAAF given authorization to sink without warning any U-boats.

4) US shipping in the South Atlantic is told to have their running lights on and any sub attack would be considered a hostile attack.

1942:
In the Pacific, nothing will change. The US needs to build bases throughout the region before any buildup or offensive action begins. Plus some capital ships will still be needed in the Atlantic to guard against the German BB's from sortie into the Western Atlantic.
In Africa, the Brits still win because of the logistics issues the Germans had.

1943:
With more material available for the Pacific, the US and ANZACians begin to really kick ass in the 2nd part of the year. But the central pacific offensive still wont occur untill late in the year simply because the USN had to wait untill the fleet carriers were there and ready to fight.
In the Med, I would venture to say the Commonwealth could invade Sicily sometime after the middle of the year. But any invasion of Italy itself would not happen due to a lack of shipping and air assetts. I would contemplate them invading Corsica and Sardinia instead, thus securing the Med.

1944: With no credible threat from the Commonwealth, the Germans redeploy their divisions and LW units to the east and could successfully limit the impact of Russian offensives. The commmonwealths main problem is that without US involvement in the war, they have severe manpower shortages and not enough industrial capacity for this year or the next. The German tank forces are 300% better than the allied, so the commonwealth needs to find away to quadruple its production. Same with aircraft production....tens of thousands of aircraft of all types will be needed and no matter how productive Canada is, they do not have the ability to build that many.

1945: Russia and Germany have taken so many losses that they agree to a defacto cease fire 'and lick their wounds". Still the commonwealth cant plan for an invasion for this year due to the increase in effectiveness of the LW due to jets, improved tanks and AFV's and te inability for the commonwealth to build enough of whats needed.

1946: Who knows.


Hunter, no matter how you "spin" how much Canada produced in the war.... it still comes down to the fact they you are small country with limited manpower and infastructure. Its a fact Canada built plenty of convoy escorts, but how are you going to build the vast armada of landing craft and transports needed to successfully invade the contient on a scale approaching the Normandy operation. Same question about the tanks and AFV's... same with the 10's fo thousands of multi engined bombers. Building a few thousand from a single plant hardly compares to the 2 dozen or so plants in the US.

Syscom, first let me say this......I never said Canada could do "anything". I just posted facts about Canadian war production......I never added anything else after that. But you have to admit what we did produce was amazing considering we had a population of only 11 million people at the time. For such a small population we kicked butt in WW2.

There I was tooting the Canadian horn a little there......kinda feels good! Something I rarely do.


I respond to your question and post soon.

-39 and 40 go the same as it did in WW2 but without any lend lease from USA to UK.

-Eastern Atlantic (and North Atlantic to Canada) becoming a fierce battle ground between RN (and RAF) and U-boats.

-Germany would most likely take Gibraltar to use as a base of operations. Using Spain to move their troops threw Spain. UK would be unable to stop them.

-UK would still defeat Italy/Germany in NA and perhaps take over colonies in Africa to use as bases to help fight their U boat battles. Air battles would happen between Gibraltar (LW) and NA (RAF).

-Japan would not attack USA if their was no oil embargo. Unless pushed into a corner later in war.

-Japan keeps up her attacks on China, perhaps Burma and Dutch East Indies.

-UK would feel the pinch fighting in Med, Atlantic and East.

-Russia/Germany. Germany invades in 41 and crushes Russia early.

-As war grinds on UK and Russia keep Germany at bay. UK maintains control of seas and NA......but on her heels in East. Russia holds Germany but Germany punishes Russia brutally. Russia/Germany/UK all bleed each other dry in long drawn out war. In the end the war ends in 46-47 after long blood bath by all in Europe.......draw. Germany holding France and parts of Eastern Europe. UK holding much of Africa and seas (Perhaps parts of Italy). Russia holding parts of Eastern Europe and Turkey maybe.

-Japan and Russia avoid each other in the east b/c neither wants a fight with the other. Russia has hands full with Germany and Japan sees Russia as a foe she cannot beat on a land battle.

-Big winner is Japan as long as she does not create or start a war with the sleeping giant..........USA.

-If Japan does not end up in a war with USA she will gain huge land chunks in China and and Dutch East Indies and maybe Australia. Without angering USA into a war UK/China cannot stop Japan in East. Japan would not anger Russia into a war either......truely neither Russia or Japan want a war with each other.

-If Japan does start a war with USA......she will be crushed even faster then she was in real WW2.

In summary I cannot see UK and Russia being able to totally defeat Germany/Japan/Italy by themselves. (please note when I say UK and truely mean Commonwealth in my whole post) UK would win the battle with U boats but it would be a bloody hard fought win. War in Europe would be a long drawn out bloody war with no true winner. Japan wins big as long as she does not draw Russia or USA into the war with her. If Russia does come into war with Japan after war is over in Europe Russia would push Japan out of China. But Russia could do nothing to stop Japan's gains in South Pacific.......only USA could stop her there.


But of course I would be the first to admit that the war could take many different angles then what I have stated......mine is just one version of many.

But bottom line I don't see UK/Russia beating Japan/Germany/Italy in a total war......meaning it would end in a negotiated peace. All with bloody noses.

syscom3 said:

This how I see things panning out.

1) The Japanese attack Pearl Harbor as planned, with a US and britiah declaration of war the next day.

Click to expand...

Syscom, why would the Japanese attack the USA in '41?

Glider said:

I think the major divergence of opinion is what happens with Japan. If the USA is strictly neutral, then in my opinion Japan wouldn't attack as they wouldn't have been forced into a corner re oil and scrap metal which the USA embargoed. As a result, the British wouldn't have had any losses.
Japan may have been party to agreements with Germany and Italy but they didn't declare war on Britain when Germany did, or when the Italians did. The Japanese only declared war on the British, when they attacked the USA. There was no reason for Japan to attack Britain, their main preocupation was consolidating their grip on China.

Click to expand...

Freebird said:

About Japan, Glider is exactly correct, Japan's LAST option was for war with USA in 1942, they wanted to finish China first, at least 12 - 18 months work, their second priority was the Soviet far east. I have an excellent book "70 days to Singapore", by Stanley Falk USAF historian. He quotes Japanese sources on the Imperial conference of July 1941 deciding that because of the crippling sanctions, war with US UK was the only option. However, they were prepared to call off the attacks as late as Nov 1941, if agreement could be reached with the Dutch. (who because of US pressure refused to sell oil to Japan)

Click to expand...

Syscom said:

2) Germany refuses to declare war on the US, with the US not wanting to declare war untill Germany does it first. Either way, neither country trusts each other and a semi-beligerent status is maintained.

3) The US declares the Western Atlantic is declared a "German" free zone and the USN and USAAF given authorization to sink without warning any U-boats.

4) US shipping in the South Atlantic is told to have their running lights on and any sub attack would be considered a hostile attack.

1942:
In the Pacific, nothing will change. The US needs to build bases throughout the region before any buildup or offensive action begins. Plus some capital ships will still be needed in the Atlantic to guard against the German BB's from sortie into the Western Atlantic.
In Africa, the Brits still win because of the logistics issues the Germans had.

1943:
With more material available for the Pacific, the US and ANZACians begin to really kick ass in the 2nd part of the year. But the central pacific offensive still wont occur untill late in the year simply because the USN had to wait untill the fleet carriers were there and ready to fight.
In the Med, I would venture to say the Commonwealth could invade Sicily sometime after the middle of the year. But any invasion of Italy itself would not happen due to a lack of shipping and air assetts. I would contemplate them invading Corsica and Sardinia instead, thus securing the Med.

Remember that because of the loss of Italy's colonies (E. Africa, Libya) Musso's government was overthrown when the British US landed in Sicily. Marshal Badoglio immediatly opened (secret) negotiations with the British.

1944: With no credible threat from the Commonwealth, the Germans redeploy their divisions and LW units to the east and could successfully limit the impact of Russian offensives.

No credible threat? The Germans maintained over 35 divisions in W Europe to prevent an Allied landing, and about the same in southern Europe, because the Italians were no longer assisting the Germans by garrisoning Italy, Sardinia, Greece the Balkans. Remember thet WE KNOW how many divisions the British had, but Hitler over-estimated it by 12-15 throughout the war, because he did not have the intelligence advantage that the Allies had.

Do you really think the Germans could turn things around after Stalingrad Kursk? Even supposing they could transfer 20 - 25 divisions (mainly infantry) to the east? Remember that they still have an extreme shortage of oil resources because of the British blockade.

The commmonwealths main problem is that without US involvement in the war, they have severe manpower shortages and not enough industrial capacity for this year or the next.

Click to expand...

[Ok, about this "manpower shortage". The commonwealth had under-utilised troops up until 1944. The Canadian corps never went into combat until mid '43. Also in 1943 the Canadian 6 division was sent to garrison Kiska (that would be part of the USA) The Commonwealth would not need to send a dozen or so divisions + air naval forces to fight the Japanese in N. Guinea, Burma, Malaya etc.

Remember this: Britain the Dominions (67.5 million) are almost the same population as Greater Germany, 71 million. (not counting non-Germans) (UK 46 million, Canada 11, Australia 7, NZ 1.5, S. Africa 2) The Industrial capability of the UK/Commonwealth was about the same as Germany, but the oil/resource situation of Germany was far worse. So any "manpower shortage" would affect Germany too.

Germany also had Italy, Rumania Finland as allies, plus production from France Czech factories. Do you want to compare that to Russian manpower production in 1943 - 1944? I havn't even included the British colonies, with manpower of 100's of millions (India also contributed many divisions to the war effort)

Syscom said:

The German tank forces are 300% better than the allied, so the commonwealth needs to find away to quadruple its production.

Click to expand...

Do you have any basis for 300% better? Do you have any loss figures for tanks in the desert?

Agreed, I would rather be in a Panzer IV than a Crusader (unless the Panzer is out of gas....) Remember that the 8th army beat Rommel in Oct 1942 WITHOUT any US troops. (Yes I know, we did get some US tanks, but we had over 800 Canadian tanks sitting in Canada UK, I'd rather have a Ram II than a Gen Grant)

Syscom said:

Same with aircraft production....tens of thousands of aircraft of all types will be needed and no matter how productive Canada is, they do not have the ability to build that many.

Click to expand...

In WWII the German aircraft production never equaled the Commonwealth, except in 1944. UK aircraft built: '39 - 7,940 '40 - 15,000, '41 - 20,000, '42 - 23,600, '43 - 26,200, '44 - 26,400. Germany built 400 more aircraft than the UK in 1939, 4,000 less in 1940, 7,000 less in 1941, 8,000 less in 1942, 1,500 less in 1943.

In 1944 Germany finally out built the UK 40,500 to 26,400, but in this year the Russians built 40,300.

So in every year from 1939 - 1943 the Allies (NOT including USA) built 2 or 3 times many aircraft as Germany, except in 1944 when they could only manage to out-build Germany 1.8 to 1

Note: Total Canadian WWII production as mentioned by Hunter: 16,000. The Italians built: 11,500

Aircraft production tables:
WW2 Aircraft Production Numbers

Syscom said:

1945: Russia and Germany have taken so many losses that they agree to a defacto cease fire 'and lick their wounds".
The Soviets would never stop to let Germany re-build, they would keep attacking until they win (or were conquered)
Still the commonwealth cant plan for an invasion for this year due to the increase in effectiveness of the LW due to jets,

The He 262 first went into action against the Allies in Aug 1944, one month after the July introduction of the Gloster Meteor

improved tanks and AFV's and the inability for the commonwealth to build enough of whats needed.

In WWII Germany built 47,000 tanks, the UK Canada built 34,000 and USSR built 105,000. If The USA hadn't been suppling so many tanks Canada's program would not have been cancelled, we had the capacity to build at least 3 - 4 times what we did.


1946: Who knows.


Hunter, no matter how you "spin" how much Canada produced in the war.... it still comes down to the fact they you are small country with limited manpower and infastructure. Its a fact Canada built plenty of convoy escorts, but how are you going to build the vast armada of landing craft and transports needed to successfully invade the contient.

OK, I have to say that I don't think the UK/Commonwealth, as a Naval power, could invade France/Germany without the USA, unless the Russians have already defeated most of the German army.

on a scale approaching the Normandy operation. Same question about the tanks and AFV's... same with the 10's fo thousands of multi engined bombers. Building a few thousand from a single plant hardly compares to the 2 dozen or so plants in the US.

Click to expand...

As I already posted:

Freebird said:

To succeed in this scenario the British need to do 5 things.

1.) Maintain enough shipping keep losses from U-boats to a managable level.

2.) send enough aid to Russia in the first 12-15 months to keep them in the war and prevent Germany from defeating them

3.) Maintain enough air ground strength in W. Europe Africa to prevent the Germans from sending any more to the Eastern Front

4.) Defend her Empire territory.

5.) Keep up the pressure in N. Africa

Click to expand...

Of course they would have to ramp up production as well.

and without the US where would we get these Merlins that powered most of the combat aircraft we made . Canada made the Hurricane , Lancaster , Mosquito, Cat, Helldiver , Blenheim and the Lincoln(1) all these aircraft used american equipment and engines .

Following Freebirds outline here are my thoughts

1939-1941 nothing changes
1942 The UK reinforces the Middle East with forces that would have been sent to the Far East and knock the Italians out of the war. Germany being tied up in Russia were not able to increase the support assigned to Rommel.
In the Atantic the Naval forces lost in the 'Pacific real world' are not lost and add to the naval forces in the Atlantic. The Hermes and the Argus can be used as escort carriers being to small for fleet actions. This combined with long range bombers released from Bomber command keep Merchant marine losses to acceptable levels.
More escort carriers are needed but being able to concentrate long ranged shore based bombers on the convoys without a carrier will help reduce this risk.
In the USA they are not attacked but their build up continued, their naval forces are a lot stronger than in Dec 1941. The USAAF is better equipped with modern bombers B17C, A20, B25, B26, the fighters are equipped with P40's and P38. With luck the USA recognise that the P39 is best used as a GA aircraft. Her army is better equipped with modern weapons and tanks albieit M3 light tanks which are sufficient for the Pacific arena.
Japan cannot match this build up. Her naval forces in particular will lag behind.
Russia loses more ground than actually happened but Germany is overstretched logistically, the ground gained being of little strategic benefit.

1943 Japan has attacked the USA or has she? would she in view of the disparity in forces?
Anyway the assumption is that Japan does attack and the USA put a Pacific first policy in place. The British areas are wide open to attack and the results are similar but America is a much tougher nut to crack. Pearl Harbour is as devastating but the land war goes better for the USA. The following naval battles are more in favour of the USA and the Japanese lose vessels they couldn't replace.
In the Atlantic the sea war goes as history. The technical advances build up and the battle turns against the U Boats. British escort carriers start to come on stream and make a difference, plus british losses are less than historical as the atlantic gap was closed earlier.
The Russian wars continue and Russia fights the Germans to a stalemate.

1944 In the Pacific Japan is in serious trouble, Her naval forces are crushed and the captured British areas are cut off and left to wither.
In Russia its basically a stalemate with both sides being bled white.
The UK is safe and the forces are built up but an invasion is not on the cards

1945 the USA is in a position to assist the British. Japan surrenders and forces are switched to the European front. The stories over what the Germans are doing the Jews have leaked out and its politically impossible for the USA to stay out. In Russia the German forces still hold out but its on the defensive.

1946 The invasion of Europe takes place. History basically follows what happened but 12 months later.