Did the US save Europe in WW2?

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

  • Total voters
    77

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
With all due respect to Mr Kenney: Probably the finest book ever written about the oil industry is by Daniel Yergin, "The Prize." It should be required reading in Washington, if anyone there can read. Regarding the Battle of the Atlantic, " the Battle of the Atlantic became even more dangerous in the second half of 1942." This was well after the US was in the war. " In mid December,(1942) Churchill was told there was only about 2-months supply of fuel oil for ships in Britain." "By the spring of 1943, British oil stocks were at their lowest levels yet." "In March, the U-boats sank 108 ships." These quotes are to point out that these low points were well after the US entered the war. The Battle of the Atlantic could not have been won if the US had not been in the war. "Almost all of the Allies' needs for 100-octane fuel had to be met by American production-almost 90 per cent of the total by 1944." The Allies consumed 7 billion barrels of oil during WW2, 6 billion of those barrels came from the US. Most of the tankers that transported that oil across the seas were built in the US. Aside from weapons, food, raw materials and fighting men, does anyone suppose that the Allies without the US could have won the war with only 1 billion barrels of oil. Malta could not have survived to become the launching pad for AC to sever Rommels supply lines without gasoline from the US. Remember the SS Ohio? Where does one think the fuel came from to power Monty's tanks,(many of them made in the US) at El Alamein. It is unrealistic to believe that the Allies could have won the war in Europe without the US.
 
I think without US help any chance of a total victory with western Europe remaining in the democratic sphere is whimsical . However the belief (in the US) that the US was the best of all things in WW2 is also a flight of fancy
 
pbfoot said:
I think without US help any chance of a total victory with western Europe remaining in the democratic sphere is whimsical . However the belief (in the US) that the US was the best of all things in WW2 is also a flight of fancy
Click to expand...

Pb - I have held with your Opinion for a long time on this thread... and my focus has always been oil first, food second for Britain... then keeping Jap fleet away from Indian Ocean and points west in 1942.
 

Since everybody wants to know about AvGas....

Sorry, Renrich, but I think your information is incorrect, the the largest supply came from the subsidiary of a US company, Esso (ex - Standard Oil) located in Aruba, outside the USA. The US supplied oil in WWII because it was easiest to transport directly from the USA, The Allies had more than enough oil to supply their needs, as well as refineries outside the USA, which in 1940 supplied 3/4 of the 100 octane Avgas. The 3 principal sources of oil (other than USA) for the Allies were the 1) Persian Gulf (Iran Iraq) 2) East Indies (Borneo, Sarawak, Burma) and 3) Mexico/Venezuala. The East Indies Persian Gulf oilfields were developed controlled by British Petroleum Royal Dutch Shell, they also had major holdings in Venezuela. The largest refinery in the world in WWII is the Lago refinery on the (Dutch) island of Aruba in the Caribbean, which was expanded due to the pre-war contract signed with the UK to provide AvGas.
Lago website (excuse the grammar, it's translated from Dutch)
LAGO HISTORY

The developemnt of a 100 octane fuel

Britain began stockpiling 100 octane fuel with receipt in June 1939 of a
bulk shipment from the refinery in Aruba. This initial shipment of 100
octane fuel was soon supplemented with further shipments from the same
refienry and from other refineries in Curacao and the United States. Upon
the beginning of the war and the establishment of the U.S. Neutrality Act,
shipments of the 100 octane fuel from American refineries to the stockpiles
in Britain were interrupted for a period of time. Alternate stocks of the 100 octane fuel were obtained from Persia, Borneo, South Africa and the Caribbean, until President Roosevelt found a means to resume some American shipments of the 100 octane fuel to Britain. Some 90% of the production from the refinery in Abadan, Persia eventually became devoted to supplying the RAF's needs for AvGas. Avgas can also be obtained by adding iso-octane to regular 87 octane gasoline. Iso-octane, was obtained by the alkylation process developed patented by the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company's Sunbury Research Laboratory in 1935.

Anglo-Iranian Oil had been developing from 1936 another high octane leaded fuel for British aviation engines based on high-benzole Venezuelan crude oil blended with iso-octane from the British refinery at Abadan. Bulk supply contracts were placed by the Air Ministry in 1937 for this fuel and it was put into wide-spread use in the RAF in March 1940 (dyed green to distinguish it from the 87 octane, which was blue).

In November 1940, UK supplies of high octane aviation fuel
were derived from three Esso refineries handling Venezuelan
oil, two in the US (25%) and one in the Caribbean (about 20%), the
Anglo-Iranian Oil refinery at Abadan (25%) and Shell
refineries in Borneo (30%). 75% of the British supply was
non-US in origin.

Source for above: "The History of the British Petroleum
Company" (Cambridge University Press, 1994).
 
Pflueger said:
Thanks for letting me play.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the debate...

True, because it was only by the fall/winter of 1942 that the US put convoys in place on most routes in US waters. The crisis arose because of the huge losses throughout the year, compounding every month.
Yes, it could have, the situation became extremely difficult after the Allies lost 1155 ships, over 780 of them in US waters, (almost all unescorted) during 1942 and largely because of Adm. King's refusal to order convoys or blackouts, or to allow other defensive measures. The British oil tankers were particularly hard hit because their routes from the Caribbean went through US waters where the U-boats were waiting.
"Almost all of the Allies' needs for 100-octane fuel had to be met by American production-almost 90 per cent of the total by 1944."
Click to expand...
The "almost 90%" figure for "American production" is for US aircraft, but the British are supplied from an American company, Esso, (ex- Standard) in Aruba, and other refineries in Curacao, Abadan, and also plants in the Commonwealth. The Esso refinery had a contract to supply AvGas to the UK, and as the territory of Aruba is Dutch, not US soil, Congressianal orders do not apply.
The British had enough capacity to supply all of its 100 octane fuel from British or Dutch refineries, by expanding production if need be. Also remember that in Bill's scenario the USA is completely neutral, so Japan does not feel forced to attack in 1941, delaying its entry into the war by at least a year. Ergo, the British Dutch oilfields are still in Allied control, producing petroleum Avgas for them (and the Japs!!! LOL)

During WWII the British ramped up production at a number of facilities in order to meet their wartime AvGas needs. They had plants at Bilingham, Heysham, Stanlow, and Thornton. The Anglo-Iranian oil refinery in Abadan, had no fewer than 4 expansions in two years to produce more high octane fuel. For history on the Bilingham
plant you can go to site:

BBC - Nation on Film - Chemicals - Index


The Allies consumed 7 billion barrels of oil during WW2, 6 billion of those barrels came from the US. does anyone suppose that the Allies without the US could have won the war with only 1 billion barrels of oil?
Click to expand...
Yes easily, the majority of the 7 billion is for US Russian forces, US domestic consumption. While the UK, Canada, Australia had rationing of gasoline from early in the war, the US was not short of fuel, rationing was introduced in the summer of '42 to save rubber, not gasoline.

Rationing

Oil reserves: The Dutch British have available at least 1 billion barrels per year from all sources. (163 million tons/year or 13.5 million tons/month) During WWII Venezuela alone could pump up to 24,000,000 barrels per month (3.9 million tons/month) (the 2 largest Venezuelan oilfield holdings were Creole petroleum Royal Duch Shell)

Oil industry in Venezuela:

The Politics of the Global Oil ... - Google Book Search

Energy Tribune

Most of the tankers that transported that oil across the seas were built in the US.
Click to expand...
Most of the tankers built during WWII are from the USA. The UK/Dutch available shipping in 1941 is over 20 million tons, of which about 35% is oil tankers.
Aside from weapons, food, raw materials and fighting men,
Click to expand...
As previously posted, the Commonwealth produces more than enough food raw materials. The USA did not sent ground troops into combat in Europe until Torch in Nov 1942. So the main question is can the UK produce enough weapons, and supply enough shipping.

About the 7 billion barrels, this figure is the total used during the war by all the Allies, including China, Brazil, etc. and including Russian production, used for all puposes including domestic!!!. As posted previously the UK Dutch have about 6 million tons of tankers, the US entered the war with about 8 million tons of which about 3 million tons were tankers. The 6,500 mile trip from US Gulf coast - UK would take (in tanker or Liberty ship) about one month, so a tanker can make about 1 round trip in 2 months (w/load unload) The TOTAL US tonnage built was 5.4 million tons in '42, 13 million in '43 12 million in '44 Even assuming that the US built half of all ships as tankers, it could only transport 35 million tons in '42, 52 million in 1943, 88 million in 1944 52 million tons for 5 months in 1945, so the US could ship from 1941 - 1945 228 million tons or 1.39 billion barrels, ASSUMING THAT NOT ONE SINGLE SHIP WAS SUNK BY A U-BOAT. (The UK/Dutch shipping with a larger starting tonnage could transport 1.58 billion barrels over 5.75 years) So the Total combined Allied fleet could not even transport 3 billion barrels for the whole war, even WITH NO U-BOAT SINKINGS. So obviously the 7 billion barrel figure is NOT the amount shipped on tankers.

The UK needed a minimum of 27 million tons of imports per year (in wartime) for all uses, including 6 million tons of food, about 6 million tons of raw materials and 15 million of fuel. The 15 million tons of fuel is 91 million barrels, or 0.526 billion barrels over 5.75 years

Just for clarity- I am using the figure of 42 gallons per barrel and that this is the Imperial gallon (4.5 liters), not the US gallon (3.78 liters). An Imperial gallon weighs 7 - 7.2 pounds. I am also using the 2,000 pound "Short ton" not the 2,400 pound "Long ton".
 
syscom3 said:
Freebird, thats some great info!
Click to expand...
Thanks Syscom Plan D! Just trying to burst a few myths...
renrich said:
The Battle of the Atlantic could not have been won if the US had not been in the war. Malta could not have survived to become the launching pad for AC to sever Rommels supply lines without gasoline from the US.
Click to expand...
The British would just have to use the green (dyed) Persian Aruban 100 AvGas instead of the Red White Blue stuff.
Remember the SS Ohio? Where does one think the fuel came from to power Monty's tanks,(many of them made in the US) at El Alamein.
Click to expand...
The British Commonwealth Allies would just have to use Aussie, NZ, Polish S.African troops, driving Canadian tanks (over 800 were sitting idle in England Canada) with Dutch gas delivered in Commonweath Norwegian ships, escorted through the Med by Greek destroyers the Royal Navy.
It is unrealistic to believe that the Allies could have won the war in Europe without the US.
Click to expand...
Depends on your definition of "won". The British certainly couldn't have done "Overlord" without US help, but I don't think the Russians can be beaten by Germany after Stalingrad/Kursk

More about shipping.

Quotes about "British Import Crisis"

"After the US entered the war, the US and UK organized joint use of merchant shipping. Throughout 1942 however, this collaboration was more of a burden than a help to Britain. British warships were diverted to help protect sea lanes in the western Atlantic, and Britain contributed heavily to American shipping services, particularly in troop ships. Due to the lag in delivery of US built ships, delivery of supplies to Britain during 1942 in US ships were hardly more than token in character. During the same period moreover, Britain was lending her new ally ships to move US cargo to North Africa. 682,000 tons of British shipping was lent to the US between October 1942 - April 1943, or more than twice the shipping that the US supplied to Britain for this period."

Quoted from "Global Logistics Strategy"

Richard M. Leighton, Ph.D., Historical Officer, Headquarters, US Army Service Forces. faculty, Harvard University, George Washington University, Industrial College of the Armed Forces.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just want to repeat here, this is not meant to be dismissive or a put-down of US contributions in WWII, without US help it is very likely that the Soviets would have rolled up all of Europe. This is just a conjectural "what if" scenario, and represents what the UK Commonwealth would have to do in the "worst case". But in reality it took the USA 12 - 18 months to put wartime production into place make a significant contribution. The US ship building was not able to provide ships to the British until the summer of '43, before this time it was building up replacing losses. On the Western front air war where the US would later make a big difference the 8th air force had just over 200 bomber crews in June 1943, but almost 1,000 by the end of the year (see tables post #580)

Syscom, you hit the nail on the head with your earlier post, by the summer of '43 when US influence was really felt, the Germans had already lost Stalingrad Kursk, I don't see how Germany could turn things around, even assuming they could have a hundred or two extra aircraft 2 or 3 extra divisions per month in the East, I think the extra forces would just get ground up. (But I'd like to see what case someone could put forward)
 
its a nice fantasy anyway . Have you ever talked to anybody that was in the UK during WW2 food was scarce not starvation but scarce .Ask any Canadian that was over there , then ask him if he wants some Brussell Sprouts there was almost riots with Canadian troops over the quality of food. In some units if you complained about the food it was 21 days CB. Good lord did you know the first Lanc produced in Canada the Ruhr Express which left Toronto with great fanfare got as far as Montreal where it was grounded for several days . How many 1st line combat aircraft did Canada produce not all that many
1451 Hurricanes
1032 Mossies
400 lancasters
834 Helldivers
379 Catalinas
The US saved the western europes ass
 
Some other points:

1) Stalingrad was lost due to Hitler.

2) No daylight heavy bombing campaign meant a lot more LW crews would be available for use in the med and Russian fronts.

3) No credible allied invasion in summer of 1944 would mean far more divisions available for use in Russia, which could blunt any red army offensives.

4) In 1943 and 1944, the US contributed a lot for convoy escorting duties. While its conceivable the commonwealth countries could handle the duties, it comes at a cost in your military potential. For instance, manning the escort carriers means you're reducing your fighter and bomber squadrons.

5) The allies used a tremendous number of personell and war material to build, equip and man the navies. Germany didn't have that problem. The more shipping the commonwealth needs, the more men you're taking away from the army.
 
In May of 1942, gasoline rationing began on the east coast of the US. In the fall of 1942 it was instituted nation wide. The figure of 7 billion barrels of oil used by the allies and 6 billion supplied by the US was from a website of George Mason Univ. In Yergin's book on page 379, he states that America increased it's production of crude from 3.7 million barrels a day in 1940 to 4.7 million per day in 1945. He further states that between December 1941 and August 1945 the US and it's allies consumed almost 7 billion barrels of oil, of which 6 billion came from the US. That jibes nicely with the George Mason data. Obviously those numbers include the Pacific war but the oil usage in Europe must have been much greater than in the Pacific. I don't know if the 7B # includes any domestic usage. On page 383 he states that America produced almost 90 % of the total 100 octane used by the allies by 1944. On page 384 he says that in 1940 the US had a production capacity of 40,000 barrels a day of 100 octane, in 1945 the capacity was 514,000 barrels per day. Yergin is one of the world's leading authorities on world affairs and the oil industry. He is president of the Cambridge Energy Research Assoc. and has a BA from Yale and a PHD from Cambridge Univ. where he was a Marshall scholar. I believe that operation Torch took place in November, 1942, less than a year after Pearl Harbor and it was mostly American troops, AC and ships. To say that it took 12 to 18 months for the US to make a significant contribution is just plain wrong.
 
pbfoot, you seem to be ignoring Freebirds posts. Even without them you should realise that the British Empire out-produced Germany in aircraft so Canada's contribution in aircraft production was just more numbers to add to the gap between British and German production.

syscom,

Stalingrad was lost solely due to Hitler's miscalculations and pride, you couldn't be more correct. But I do not see how the U.S made him anymore proud and anymore insane - is there any shred of proof that Hitler would have remained stable if there was no U.S presence?

The RAF did maintain a daylight bombing campaign throughout the entirety of the war, let's no disregard the brave deeds made by 2 Group. These operations were minute compared to the 8th Air Force but tied down German forces nevertheless.
You have to question whether the Germans had an accurate picture of Allied strength ... and then realise that they over-estimated it time and time again.

The disaster at Dieppe informed the Germans that Allied forces were capable of crossing the Channel. It may sound remarkable but even a complete victory at Dieppe made the Germans wary of invasion. Given the complete over-calculations of the German intelligence services it's only reasonable to suggest that Germany would not strip France to the bone.

I think it's been proven by Freebird that the Commonwealth could obtain victory in the Battle of the Atlantic. Without U.S 'aid' in 1942 Britain may have had a larger advantage by 1944 ... but that's just a theory. In any case, smaller numbers in the airforce wouldn't mean certain defeat given the fact that by 1943 the Soviets had been wearing down the German forces for some time.

On the shipping for 'Overlord' ; 79% was British and Canadian , 16.5% was American.

reinrich,

Given that Nov. 1942 is 11 months after Pearl Harbour and that 'Torch' was not a solely American affair, and that it had no affect on the North African campaign until some way in ... it's safe to say 12 - 18 months.
 
To back up PB's post, I had an English History teacher in high school in 1950-52 who was in Britain during the war and he stated that food was scarce, especially meat. He told us what the weekly ration was but I don't remember what it was other that it would not feed me for one day. Without US ships and supplies the U boats would have starved Britain I believe. I have also read a number of books by John Keegan and wonder what his take on this subject would be. I think I know.
 
The British rationing led no one to starvation; my father still has his rationing book from when he was a child and I'm sure that English teacher of yours would have had his. If the British ration for the day would not be enough to feed you it says a lot about your eating habits, but seriously it was scare but it was enough to feed a nation.
 
I realize what freebird is trying to say but it is fundementally flawed without oil from the US there would have been no BCATP which supplied the bulk of aircrew to fly the aircraft. We had very limited oil resources prior to 46 so all our fuel was from the US was there enough shipping to supply us with oil as well . Yes the Uk outproduced Germany for combat aircraft but they didn't have to worry about trainers as the majority were made in North America. All the machine tools used to make the tanks and transportation that he espouses was from the US . Machine tools, abrasives , specialty steels , forgings, plastics , the list is endless . Without the US the only use of Canadian industry was canned food
 
syscom3 said:
Some other points:

1) Stalingrad was lost due to Hitler.
Click to expand...

Mostly yes, the German army OKW were surprised that the Russians had such a large reserve, but Hitlers stubborness in refusing to allow retreats sealed their fate.
Syscom said:
2) No daylight heavy bombing campaign meant a lot more LW crews would be available for use in the med and Russian fronts.
Click to expand...

Syscom, I agree with you the Russians would have more LW to deal with, but I think by 1943 they are producing enough aircraft to deal with it. In July 1943 the Germans had 7,080 combat aircraft, with 1,784 fighters. They had about 600 fighters in each of the 3 theaters (Med, the West, Russia), plus about 1,700 other aircraft in each theater. The attrition rate in the summer of 1943 became huge for the Germans, from July - Aug 1943 they lost about 1,000 aircraft in the Med, 1,000 in W Europe, and 1,150 in Russia. Worse yet they lost 1,313 fighters out of 1,784 during the 2 months. Remember that the LW could not withdraw ALL its aircraft from France/Germany, as otherwise the British would start daylight bombing as well. But I think the Germans could send maybe 250 of their fighters from France to the East, and perhaps the same frome the Med in the summer of 1943. But considering that they were losing something like 300 - 400 per month on the Eastern front makes you wonder how much good it would do.

Read the article on "Luftwaffe attrition" and see what you think

Attrition and the Luetwaffe

Syscom said:
3) No credible allied invasion in summer of 1944 would mean far more divisions available for use in Russia, which could blunt any red army offensives.
Click to expand...

Yes there would be more divisions, but do you think it would make a difference? The Germans have about 45 divisions in the West, + 12 in Norway. They would have to leave at least 25 - 30 to defend France, because by 1943 most of the German divisions are static, not mobile (lack of fuel) and they can't predict where the Allies would land. also remember that Hitler is worried that a British landing in France even if small, would spark revolts resistance among the French population. So do you think that 15 - 20 infantry divisions will make a huge difference in the East? The Germans would not get much benefit in troops from the Med, the Germans had almost as many troops guarding the long Med coastline waiting for an attack as they did after the invasion of Italy.

Yes true, but the huge losses of 1942 set the Allies back by about a year or more. Without Adm. King directing Naval policy in the Western Atlantic, the shipping navy situation would be quite different
 

3 of my 4 grandparents were born in the UK, and I have relatives there. They remember the workers taking away all of the iron railings for the war effort!
Yes, PB is right the food situation was serious from summer '42 - summer '43, but this was largely due to poor manegement of shipping, the losses during the "Happy time" came back to bite the Allies during the winter of 42/43
 
Another point in the Battle of the Atlantic is that shortly after the US entered the war, in early 1942, Doenitz shifted his U boats to the Carribbean to disrupt the shipping there and cut the US off from food and raw material coming from South America. That took a lot of pressure off of the north atlantic routes which were vital to Britain.
 
It is true that few people in Britain starved but that was with all the food shipped from the US. Without that food form my country, how would they have fared?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Ukraine International Airlines PS752
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
5K
DerAdlerIstGelandet
F
  • Locked
were the tuskegee airmen the most skilled pilots in the war?
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
20K
FLYBOYJ
J
Romanian Aeronautics in the Second World War 1941-1945
Replies
0
Views
4K
Jjr
J
  • Locked
SPITS BURIED SINCE 1945 LOCATED IN MYANMAR
Replies
3
Views
6K
evangilder
WW2 career, plausible postings/dates.
Replies
0
Views
3K
Tony Hill
Menu
Log in
Register