Did the US save Europe in WW2?

[Freebird]

-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.

Spain refused several German requests for permission to attack Gibraltar. Hitler was quoted after the meetings that he would rather "have his teeth pulled out" than negotiate with Franco. The Spanish knew that if they let the Germans attack Gibraltar the UK would consider this an act of war, and sieze the Canary Islands other Spanish colonies.

-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.

Japan was extremely wary of attacking Dutch E.I. with the US sitting on her supply lines. (Yes in this scenario USA is neutral, but supposing Japan attacks Dutch/UK colonies and then the US government changes? She couldn't take the chance)
-UK would feel the pinch fighting in Med, Atlantic and East.

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

Germany would do no better than they did in the historical model unless the UK cannot deliver most of their lend-lease in the first 12 -18 months. If lend lease drops off in mid 1943 do you think Germany could turn things around after "Kursk"?

-As war grinds on UK and Russia keep Germany at bay. UK maintains control of seas and NA......but on her heels in East.

Eastern war would be quite different if Japan attacked in 1943 instead of late '41.
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.

By '43 the Commonwealth is probably in a better position than in 1941.

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.


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.

My earlier post on the "endgame"

Suppose as in my hypothesis the British DO support Russia enough to tip the balance in the east. The only way for anything approaching a British Victory would depend on Germany coming to an agreement to a truce with Britain AFTER they have lost the Eastern war but BEFORE Germany is occupied by Russia. Very tricky to say the least.
The British might make an offer to moderate, intelligent, German Generals ie (Rommel, Guderian, Manstien) something like this: Arrest the top Nazi's (Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Eichmann etc) for trial, then and ONLY THEN the UK would consider a truce with a new German Government, with the Germans moving back to approx. their 1914 borders. And yes this would be considered a double-cross by Stalin, but I don't know if Russia would continue the war if they got their territory back Britain is no longer fighting + the Japanese are threatening in the East. the only real acceptable outcome for the UK (absent of US involvement) is a stalemate between Germany Russia, total domination of the continent by Russia is almost as bad as by Germany. This would be a continuation of Britain's 19th century "Continental policy" of preventing any one power from dominating all of Europe.

 

[Hunter368]

Freebird,

Yes Hitler was very upset and even refused to allow Franco's name be uttered in his presents. Hitler had in place a plan to invade Spain and seize Gibraltar and he could of pulled it off if he wanted to.

Yes Japan would be very wise to not angry USA, thus keep them out of the war in South Pacific.

I agree Germany would of done no better in 41, that was what I was trying to say also if I was unclear. Not so sure Kursk would of been any different in 43 even without Lend lease.

Japan would not or should not wait to wage war until 43, she should attack when UK is weak, 39-40 would of been perfect. Then UK is stretched thin between NA, East, Med, Atlantic and defending herself.

 

[renrich]

Without the armed forces of the US. Without the weapons manufactured in the US. Without the food grown in the US. Without the raw materials that came from the US. Without the OIL that came from the US. Germany would have won the war in Europe PERIOD.

 

[m kenny]

Without the armed forces of the US. Without the weapons manufactured in the US. Without the food grown in the US. Without the raw materials that came from the US. Without the OIL that came from the US. Germany would have won the war in Europe PERIOD.

Without the hot air from like minded myopics the world would not be as warm as it now is.

Russia did more than any other nation to defeat Germany. Thanks for your help but please dont try and claim you were decisive.

 

[syscom3]

Without the hot air from like minded myopics the world would not be as warm as it now is.

Russia did more than any other nation to defeat Germany. Thanks for your help but please dont try and claim you were decisive.

The industrial power of the US ensured the success of the war against Germany.

 

[Freebird]

Without the armed forces of the US. Without the weapons manufactured in the US. Without the food grown in the US. Without the raw materials that came from the US. Without the OIL that came from the US. Germany would have won the war in Europe PERIOD.

Renrich, Britain the Allies had more than enough food, raw materials oil to supply the war effort, the problem was finding enough ships to send it. The US did not have any troops involved in Europe until Nov 1942, except for some garrisoning Iceland. After Dec 1941 the US was only able to supply a few ships to Britain for the first year, because the US need to replace its own losses, to build up for the Pacific war. The US was not able to do much against the U-boats in 1942, as they were involved in the Pacific.

One thing to ponder on about the US contribution to the war in Europe..... it wasn't untill summer of 1943 that there were enough troops and amphib ships for the US and Brits to be a factor in Italy.

The Germans essentially lost the war in Russia at Stalingrad long before the US's power was felt.

After Stalingrad I don't think that Germany could beat the USSR, even if the USA sent no aid at all.

 

[AL Schlageter]

Yes Japan would be very wise to not angry USA, thus keep them out of the war in South Pacific.

I agree Germany would of done no better in 41, that was what I was trying to say also if I was unclear. Not so sure Kursk would of been any different in 43 even without Lend lease.

Japan would not or should not wait to wage war until 43, she should attack when UK is weak, 39-40 would of been perfect. Then UK is stretched thin between NA, East, Med, Atlantic and defending herself.

By attacking the British and Dutch, the USA will enter the war in the Pacific earlier. American interests in the area would be threatened.

................................

Lend/Lease
11Mar41. US votes Lend-Lease Act to aid England.
11Nov41. Lend Lease for France.
21Nov41. Lend Lease for Iceland.

Before these dates, it was 'cash and carry'.

From Aug 1941, 40 convoys went across the North Atlantic to Russia containing 720 ships, of which 90 were lost, which provided 23% of the aid to the Soviet Union. Over twice as much went by way of the Far East. The rest by way of the Persian Gulf, Black Sea or Arctic.
UK aid entailed 811 shiploads by all routes.

Alan Clarke and David Glantz, say that lend lease was very helpful in shortening the war, but did not decide it.

Glantz says "Lend-Lease aid did not arrive in sufficient quantities to make a difference between defeat and victory in 1941-1942''

According to Glantz, had Stalin and his commanders been left to their own devices, it "might have taken 12 to 18 months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht," but "the ultimate result would probably have been the same.

Total Cargo shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the Soviet Union

Total 17,499,861

1941 360,778 - 2%
1942 2,453,097 - 14% - 16% of total
1943 4,794,545 - 27% - 43% of total
1944 6,217,622 - 35% - 78% of total
1945 3,673,819 - 21% - 100% of total

Engines of the Red Army in WW2 - Routes Overview

As can be seen only 16% of all of Lend/Lease had been delivered by the end of 1942. To say that L/L was decisive in the 1943 battles is dreaming.

There is no way the USA would not supply material as the American god, the mighty $$$$, would reign supreme.

 

[Pflueger]

There is no way the USA would not supply material as the American god, the mighty $$$$, would reign supreme.[/QUOTE]

Probably the most valid point made on this thread thus far. Don't get me wrong, its an interesting discussion - why else would I still be keeping up with it after 50+ pages? Wish some of the posters on either side would tone tone the patriotic rhetoric a bit though.

This Yank is greatful to the Brits for hanging in there when the chips were down. That said, I do believe that without US involvement Japan sweeps over China, and a second front opens up which dooms the USSR. Japan could not have allowed her partner to fall. Often I get the feeling that Japanese capabilities are discounted on this forum. When you consider the massive commitment in manpower, ships, planes it took the US (and allies of course) to subdue Japan, what can the Russia do protect its east flank? Even after Stalingrad there would be no way Russia could defend its backside = several divisions would have to be removed from the "western" front giving Germany a chance to regroup and renew the offensive.

Its a good thing the Japanese didn't make their strike at Vladivostock (sp?)Harbor instead of Pearl Harbor, perhaps then the entire world would be speaking German (think Germany would have disposed of Japan somewhere down the line).

 

[plan_D]

The Japanese were wary of Soviet Russia after Khalin-Gol; I don't think the Japanese had much of a chance to defeat the Soviet Union in open combat.

 

[Hunter368]

After Stalingrad I don't think that Germany could beat the USSR, even if the USA sent no aid at all.

100% agree

 

[Hunter368]

The Japanese were wary of Soviet Russia after Khalin-Gol; I don't think the Japanese had much of a chance to defeat the Soviet Union in open combat.

100% agree

 

[plan_D]

Sharks only attack you when you're wet.

 

[Freebird]

This Yank is greatful to the Brits for hanging in there when the chips were down. That said, I do believe that without US involvement Japan sweeps over China, and a second front opens up which dooms the USSR. Japan could not have allowed her partner to fall. Often I get the feeling that Japanese capabilities are discounted on this forum. When you consider the massive commitment in manpower, ships, planes it took the US (and allies of course) to subdue Japan, what can the Russia do protect its east flank? Even after Stalingrad there would be no way Russia could defend its backside = several divisions would have to be removed from the "western" front giving Germany a chance to regroup and renew the offensive.

Its a good thing the Japanese didn't make their strike at Vladivostock (sp?)Harbor instead of Pearl Harbor, perhaps then the entire world would be speaking German (think Germany would have disposed of Japan somewhere down the line).

The Japanese were wary of Soviet Russia after Khalin-Gol; I don't think the Japanese had much of a chance to defeat the Soviet Union in open combat.

I think PlanD is right, the Japanese would not take on USSR, at least until they were in better position in China. In 1941 the Japanese had been fighting in China for 4 years, and had less than half the country under control.

That being said, if the Japanese were not so anxious to remove the Russian threat before Pearl Harbour, they might not have signed the Japan-USSR nonagression pact which allowed the Russians to withdraw 10 - 15 divisions from the Manchurian border, and get about a quarter of Allied supplies through Vladivostok (mostly bulk commodities)

 

[Pflueger]

Don't get me wrong, I do not consider myself in the same league with you guys, and I also feel that the US owes a debt of gratitude to the UK for standing firm. I have often had the same nagging thoughts regarding Axis strategy (or lack of) - this thread brings some of these questions into play and your opinions are all appreciated and weighed heavily as my "reeducation" process continues. My thoughts:

I think the Japanese would have a chance in the "open" ground: especially if we are talking an exposed/weakly defended flank (which was the case when Soviet units were withdrawn to defend Moscow). Does not matter how well we believe the Japanese soldier stacks up against the Soviet, a Japanese thrust would require drastic action from the Soviets. Japanese armor sucked true - but think the power of their airforce (local Soviet airforce would have been overwhelmed) would help overcome this weakness. Also thinking that long supply line for Soviets would be very vulnerable (even to a few Bettys). I may be wrong but I believe at this time there were a very limited number of rail lines linking this region of USSR to the west = all source of all supplies.

OK maybe Japan does not attack Soviet Union, but...

Even if Russia is not attacked I do not think Japan would rest on their laurels and be content with early conquests. Japan would have continued moving forward cutting away at the UK worldwide. Where would the naval/air forces come from to stop Japanese from putting on a strangle hold? If the Japanese are not checked the vital resources being funneled in from the empire are going to dry up.

Could the Royal Navy have diverted enough ships away from atlantic/ mediterranean (sp?) theaters to deal with Japanese naval and, in particular, the massive Japanese carrier forces which were second to none? (and would have continued to reign supreme without US entry/escalation).

When Royal Navy units are detacted Atlantic losses to U-boats would escalate. Med Sea is compromised, invasion threat to Fortress Europe is nullified, Malta may fall, African forces are cut off... A weakened Britain poses a more limited threat in all theaters, German troops are freed up to hold the line on the Soviets. Sooner or later Stalin would run out of troops to lead into the meat grinder.

Thanks for letting me play.

 

[AL Schlageter]

We hear all the time how American L-L trucks helped the Soviets.
Some numbers, which show only 19% of the Soviet truck park were imported. This would include British and Canadian deliveries.
Lend Lease trucks in Russia

 

[Udet]

The confidence of those who believe the USA was not essential for attaining victory in Europe grows stronger as the thread goes on.

You can enjoy your pipe dreams and assess whatever data you want to bring out to nurture your illusions ; if you feel comfortable believing UK and USSR were sufficient to defeat Germany that is all right.

Freebird: yes, we all know Montgomery defeated the Afrika Korps units at El-Alamein...believe me i know it. But the question would remain, are u sure victory at El-Alamein in late 1942 as it occurred would still bring complete victory in North Africa without Operation Torch occurring during the same days when the fight was going on at El-Alamein?

Will the Italians seek under-the-table negotiations with the Western Allies without the USA landing first in North/West Africa then in the Mediterranean (Sicily)? Do you think Great Britain/Commonwealth power alone could have caused all this in North Africa/Mediterranean?

And do not misunderstand my views: i am not saying Torch landings in North/West Africa had any sort of "direct" impact on what was going on at El-Alamein...such battle will have the same outcome. Rather i am referring to the events which followed El-Alamein.

I really love this allied style for considering the first significant allied victory in the war as the so-called "turning point". You are not going to deny El-Alamein is the first significant victory of the British against the Heer are you?

Recall the British Army record:

(i) BEF in 1940.
(ii) Norway;
(iii) Greece;
(iv) Crete;
(v) First period of Rommel in command of the Afrika Korps.

Yes, there were setbacks and local defeats; i´d recall Tobruk where Australian troops held the ground for some time. But the true outcome for those battles on the list is clear: complete Germany victory -except in North Africa, late 1942-.

I digress: i talk about TRUE COMPLETE SIGNIFICANT victories in a battle, and not local defeats, setbacks or mishaps, which did occur during the first "unbeatable" years of the Wehrmacht. I do not see the Wehrmacht as a perfect body, still i see it as the best army. (Battle of Arras? Rommel stopped them dead, slammed them back real hard and routed them).

Also the symptoms of the Allied obssessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are easily detected in the Eastern Front with Stalingrad; first Russian victory, therefore we have a "turning point"...after that -and this is one of the symptoms- they suggest: "it was all down the hill for the Germans". Entertaining.

So try to reason this, can complete victory in North Africa be attained with only the British defeating the Rommel´s units at El-Alamein absent USA -critical- contribution for Torch? I am sure you are going to say "Yes", but i think i would like to see your arguments on the matter.

Finally on the LL which i have discusses ad nauseam here and elsewhere, it is also funny how both the Brits and USA invested all that human and material effort which after all, as suggested here, would make a marginal contribution to the soviet war effort -zero contribution as stated by too many people in Russia-. Another point for entertaiment -which is also another one of the Allied OCD´s symptoms-.

 

[syscom3]

Udet, the Brits won El Alamein fair and square, without a lot of US help.

Logistics was always the weak link of the Germans, and their expedition into Egypt put them at a very long supply line, that was increasingly vulnerable to attack.

Even without the US contribution to the Torch operation, the Commonwealth was going to win.

 

[Hunter368]

Udet, the Brits won El Alamein fair and square, without a lot of US help.

Logistics was always the weak link of the Germans, and their expedition into Egypt put them at a very long supply line, that was increasingly vulnerable to attack.

Even without the US contribution to the Torch operation, the Commonwealth was going to win.

Wow, I totally agree with Syscom on one of his posts! Let me go right that one down on the calender.

But I do agree with you Syscom on this post. But I do also agree some what with Udet that NA would of been a much harder victory for UK without USA attacked from a second front.

Questions for people:

How many German troops faced US forces in NA and how many faced UK forces in NA at the same time after the US landings?

 

[syscom3]

....right that one down on the calender. ....

Its "write", not right.

Sorry... I'm a spelling nazi tonight!

 

[Freebird]

The confidence of those who believe the USA was not essential for attaining victory in Europe grows stronger as the thread goes on.

You can enjoy your pipe dreams and assess whatever data you want to bring out to nurture your illusions ; if you feel comfortable believing UK and USSR were sufficient to defeat Germany that is all right.

Well perhaps do you have the "illusion" that with a few hundred more planes another dozen divisions that Germany could have turned things around after "Stalingrad"? Since most of the thread is theories about what MIGHT HAVE BEEN, actual historical data is much more useful than guesswork or opinions. There are questions about how much tonnage was needed by UK, how many divisions were available, how many planes could be produced etc. That is much more interesting relavent than someone who just has the opinion "Germany would win" or "Germany would lose". Al Shlageter's quote from Gantz says that the Soviets think they could have beaten Germany without Allied help but I don't agree.

The situation on the eastern front is one where the Soviets have more manpower reserves, production capacity resources than the Reich. Germany has the initial advantage in combat, so I think that there is a "point of balance" between victory defeat. Obviously they failed to get to that point in the historical model. I think that if Germany had attacked the Soviets in March '41 they would have a better chance to get to the "point of no return", supposing that by October, they could capture Leningrad, surround Moscow, and capture the Caucasus. Thats my best guess, that if the British could supply at least 80 - 90% of the tanks, planes, supplies etc up to Oct 1942 then the Soviets could prevail at Stalingrad and the Germans would not be able to knock them out of the war in 1943. After mid-1943 if the lend-lease aid is much less then I think it would prolong the war, not reverse it.

Freebird: yes, we all know Montgomery defeated the Afrika Korps units at El-Alamein...believe me i know it. But the question would remain, are u sure victory at El-Alamein in late 1942 as it occurred would still bring complete victory in North Africa without Operation Torch occurring during the same days when the fight was going on at El-Alamein?

Will the Italians seek under-the-table negotiations with the Western Allies without the USA landing first in North/West Africa then in the Mediterranean (Sicily)? Do you think Great Britain/Commonwealth power alone could have caused all this in North Africa/Mediterranean?

And do not misunderstand my views: i am not saying Torch landings in North/West Africa had any sort of "direct" impact on what was going on at El-Alamein...such battle will have the same outcome. Rather i am referring to the events which followed El-Alamein.

Am I sure what would happen in Africa at that point? No. As in war everything is a chance. USA only landed 6 divisions at Torch, the UK Commonwealth could send the forces needed for Torch, provided they took control of events in the Med. As I posted earlier, assuming that the USA is not providing aid in 1941 it would be foolish to contemplate the Greek intervention. If the Generals that argued against it had prevailed in March '41, it would have been a completely different story in Africa. The fact that the British could rely on the US to replace losses had a big influence on the choice to land in Greece. If the British still foolishly land in Greece in the "No USA" scenario it becomes very difficult for them to recover from the loss of 8,000 vehicles and 100's of guns.

I really love this allied style for considering the first significant allied victory in the war as the so-called "turning point". You are not going to deny El-Alamein is the first significant victory of the British against the Heer are you?

Are you claiming that "Crusader" was a German victory in Nov 1941? I think stopping Rommel, forcing him to retreat, capturing 100's of German tanks guns, and relieving the seige of Tobruk was a pretty big victory for the Allies. Yes, and the next battle "Gazala" in May '42 was lost by the British, but if they had lost "Crusader" as well they would probably be all the way back to Alexandria.

El Alamein is considered the turning point because it was the farthest point reached by the Axis, after that it was just a long retreat back

Recall the British Army record:

(i) BEF in 1940.
(ii) Norway;
(iii) Greece;
(iv) Crete;
(v) First period of Rommel in command of the Afrika Korps.

Yep, the UK paid very dearly for their years of neglect of the British Army

Yes, there were setbacks and local defeats; i´d recall Tobruk where Australian troops held the ground for some time. But the true outcome for those battles on the list is clear: complete Germany victory -except in North Africa, late 1942-.

I digress: i talk about TRUE COMPLETE SIGNIFICANT victories in a battle, and not local defeats, setbacks or mishaps, which did occur during the first "unbeatable" years of the Wehrmacht. I do not see the Wehrmacht as a perfect body, still i see it as the best army. (Battle of Arras? Rommel stopped them dead, slammed them back real hard and routed them).

I would find it hard to disagree with you here, in the early years the Germans had better equipment, better tactics, better air support better organization for all of the battles you mentioned above. Plus in Poland, Yugoslavia, France, USSR, etc, etc.

Also the symptoms of the Allied obssessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are easily detected in the Eastern Front with Stalingrad; first Russian victory, therefore we have a "turning point"...after that -and this is one of the symptoms- they suggest: "it was all down the hill for the Germans". Entertaining.

So try to reason this, can complete victory in North Africa be attained with only the British defeating the Rommel´s units at El-Alamein absent USA -critical- contribution for Torch? I am sure you are going to say "Yes", but i think i would like to see your arguments on the matter.

OK, I will post more on Torch the African situation tomorrow.

Finally on the LL which i have discusses ad nauseam here and elsewhere, it is also funny how both the Brits and USA invested all that human and material effort which after all, as suggested here, would make a marginal contribution to the soviet war effort -zero contribution as stated by too many people in Russia-. Another point for entertaiment -which is also another one of the Allied OCD´s symptoms-.

Well you might be right about that too. I think the Russians are too dismissive about lend-lease, and the USA puts too much value on it, ie "US supplies won the war". My own opinion is that the supplies in the first 12 - 15 months or so are very important, the supplies up to mid 1943 have some value, and anything sent after that made very little difference to the outcome of the war.

So now I have some questions for you, if you know.

In mid-1943 I believe, the LW had to withdraw some forces to help to combat the US air force raids. How many day fighters were transfered back from the east to the Reich in the first half of 1943, and when were they transferred?

From the information I have, the collapse of the LW became serious in July Aug of 1943, after Kursk. The 8th AF had just over 200 crews available in June of '43, and 300 in July, 450 in October, nearly 1,000
by the end of the year. So the daylight raid were not really a big factor until the second half of '43. From the info I have about Kursk, there was a huge series of air battles, the Germans had the better aircraft, but the huge #'s of Russians wore them down. Also the German LW suffered from fuel shorages.

A good article about LW attrition
Attrition and the Luetwaffe

luftwaffe

OK Udet, assuming for the sake of argument that I am correct, that the British can supply the Russians with almost all of the lend lease up to Stalingrad, 75% until Kursk, and 50% after that (after Kursk lend-lease is mostly food, raw materials, some peteoleum some trucks, but no tanks or planes) Also assume that the British can do Torch, and Sicily. Mussolini is deposed, the Italians sign an armistice and are disarmed occupied by Germany. The British threaten to land in Italy, France the Balkans (to keep German troops there) but do not land in 1943.

My Question
If from Jan of 1943 - June of 1944 the Germans could have 2 extra infantry divisions per month on the Russian Front, + 1 extra Panzer division every 2 months from Mar 1943 (in Mar, May, July, Sept, Nov '43 Jan, Mar May 1944.) Also assume that the LW could transfer 150 fighters to the east per month from March of 1943, could the Germans turn things around?

This assumes that without US in the war, Germany could transfer 24 inf divisions, 5 Panzer divisions and 1,500 fighters to the Russian front in 1943.