Did the US save Europe in WW2?

[Hunter368]

Derfman, I think all of the dutch people with any historical sense are very grateful to your country for the role it played in WWII. I totally agree with your two statements. We also owe a lot of gratatude to the Commonwealth (with a special mention of the Canadians in our case) and other allied soldiers who fought for our freedom. Still it was only half a victory as only half of europe was liberated, the rest suffered under another dictatorship, being the USSR. We must not forget that. I think most people here have problems about the way the question was asked in this thread is it suggest that US did it alone. Syscom didn't really mean that, but it provoked a lot of people nonetheless.
Must say it did develope in quite an interesting discusion in the end.

Yup thats this thread in a nutshell.

 

[syscom3]

.....I think most people here have problems about the way the question was asked in this thread is it suggest that US did it alone. Syscom didn't really mean that, but it provoked a lot of people nonetheless.
Must say it did develope in quite an interesting discusion in the end.

I never claimed the US could have beat the Nazi's alone. Anyone who claims otherwise is suggested to reread all of the posts.

If people have thin skin about it, they shouldnt be debating things in forums.

 

[Marcel]

Syscom I didn't say that you claimed that, only that the title of the thread is a little suggestive one and could be understood like that. People tend to get angry about statements like that, so that's what happens in this thread as there are some Americans who are arrogant enough to think that way. I'm not saying anyone on the forum is like that, although we have a quickly banned nutty guy even now and then

 

['Lil'tyger]

THE ALLIES HAD TO WORK TOGETHER BRITIAN&RUSSIA NEEDED THE U.S.A THE U.S.A NEEDED BRITIAN&RUSSIA

 

[Marcel]

Exactly Tyger.

PS
Suggestion, pres you CAPSlock, you're typing all in upper case

 

[renrich]

I agree with most of the above statements. Without the US entry and efforts in the war, I believe Nazi Germany could have and probably would have prevailed with possibly a negotiated peace with the UK. If Germany had knocked out and invaded Britain, before the US got in, the US probably could not have kept Hitler from dominating Europe, short of using the A bomb much later and there probably would have been some accomodation between the US and Germany before then. That would make for an interesting scenario to debate as to the outcome if Germany had successfully invaded Britain in 1940.

 

[syscom3]

Syscom I didn't say that you claimed that, only that the title of the thread is a little suggestive one and could be understood like that. People tend to get angry about statements like that, so that's what happens in this thread as there are some Americans who are arrogant enough to think that way. I'm not saying anyone on the forum is like that, although we have a quickly banned nutty guy even now and then

Its factual and accurate. So why are people getting angry? Is it because they never have really thought about the difficulties the allies had in the war?

Maybe dwell on the cool stuff like military might and not on the boring stuff like logistics and industrial capacity?

 

[syscom3]

THE ALLIES HAD TO WORK TOGETHER BRITIAN&RUSSIA NEEDED THE U.S.A THE U.S.A NEEDED BRITIAN&RUSSIA

Stick to the subject. If the US had stayed out of the fight in Europe, who would have won? Germany or Russia?

 

[Hunter368]

I still say it would of been a long drawn out war between Commonwealth, Russia and Axis. The war would of ended with very different borders then we have today and there would of been no clear winner. (Keeping in mind Japan would of ended up in a war with USA at some time after 41)

 

[Freebird]

Its factual and accurate. So why are people getting angry? Is it because they never have really thought about the difficulties the allies had in the war?

Maybe dwell on the cool stuff like military might and not on the boring stuff like logistics and industrial capacity?

Yes perhaps! And when you talk about industrial capacity logistics don't forget shipping, shipping SHIPPING!

There are quite a few newcomers to this thread, and it's quite a long 600+! posts, so perhaps we can fill you in. Syscom, Drgondog I were kicking around this idea of neutrality for the US. (with contributions from Plan D, PbFoot, Glider, Renrich others)

I don't think Syscom was trying to offend anyone, it wasn't like "USA won the war" or "we saved your @ss!". The question (posed by Drgondog) was if Roosevelt had lost in 1940, and a strict isolationist had come into office, and passed "Neutrality Laws" could Britain survive. (ie. no wapons, fuel or any assistance from USA after Jan 1941)

I am putting forward the position that they can compensate for the US neutrality until mid 1943, some others disagree.

Note: I am not claiming that the British can invade France, and also that the most likely outcome of this scenario is that the Russians will take all of Europe

So anyone that says that the US prevented western Europe from Soviet/Nazi control is correct.

There are 2 basic assumptions that are made here, if anybody would like to disagree with them, I would be most interested to hear why.

#1. If the UK is neutral or has been invaded by Germany in 1940, the Russians have a very slim (if any) chance of resisting the German invasion. (Germany uses its FULL air power against Russia, 40+ more divisions from the west are available for "Barbarossa", invasion launched 3 months earlier, no lend-lease or aid of any kind.)

#2. If the UK can supply roughly the same amount of aid keep the same # of German forces tied up until "Stalingrad", 75 - 80% until Kursk, and only 50 - 60 % after that, it will be still be TOO LATE for Germany to turn things around, by mid 1943 the Russians are too strong to be stopped.

 

[Freebird]

I still say it would of been a long drawn out war between Commonwealth, Russia and Axis. The war would of ended with very different borders then we have today and there would of been no clear winner. (Keeping in mind Japan would of ended up in a war with USA at some time after 41)

I think you are right Hunter, if the UK are able to survive and keep Russia in the war, the most likely outcome is that Russia defeats Germany. (possibly the UK is able to prevent France from Commie control, maybe not) The Soviets end up occuping Germany, and facing the UK across the channel. On the east front Japan is able to digest all of China, and there is another uneasy hostile truce in the east between Japan USSR.

 

[Marcel]

Its factual and accurate. So why are people getting angry? Is it because they never have really thought about the difficulties the allies had in the war?

No Sys, it's the words you used to write the title. It sounds like the stereotypical American with their America is biggest, best, gods gift to man etc.
I don't believe you were not aware of that when you were writing this question. You wanted to provoke.
But the thread turned into a fine one, so no harm done and as you say, everybody should have a thick skin here.

 

[plan_D]

I don't think the Soviet Union would have dominated Europe if they defeated Germany. Without U.S aid the Wehrmacht and Red Army would batter themselves into the ground - think how many more people would have died without U.S aid and help; most of it too would have been on the Eastern Front.

Personally, I think if the war had continued (which it would have) then the German and Russian nations would have bled themselves white battling it out. Once Great Britain had secured the ocean from Germany [as Freebird has proven possible] then it would have been in a position to begin invading Europe... as I said before we had the vessels for an invasion; 79% of the vessels used in Overlord were British.

 

[Hunter368]

I think you are right Hunter, if the UK are able to survive and keep Russia in the war, the most likely outcome is that Russia defeats Germany. (possibly the UK is able to prevent France from Commie control, maybe not) The Soviets end up occuping Germany, and facing the UK across the channel. On the east front Japan is able to digest all of China, and there is another uneasy hostile truce in the east between Japan USSR.

Agreed, I think it would of ended very much like what we both have said.

 

[Freebird]

I still want to know how the the Brits and others are going to compete with the Germans without US machine tools

Pb, after the isolationists win the 1940 election the US companies would lose about 80% of their orders, so they would have about 2 months to decide if they would rather open plants in Canada or close down manufacturing facilities and lay off staff. (and face bankrupcy) I think shifting production to Canada is probably what is most likely to occur. They would have to ship tools, machinery parts within the 2 month "window", after that no parts from the US, (but workers could cross the border)

According to the scenario, Roosevelt loses the Nov 1940 election to an ardent isolationist, who will re-impose the neutrality laws as soon as he (and the new congress) are sworn in in Jan 1941. Any weapons, machinery, engines or raw materials (including oil) not exported by inaugeration day are subject to embargo.

One consequence of your scenario has struck me which you may want to chew over.
If the USA isn't giving any assistance to the UK then your aeroplane, weapons and naval shipyards wouldn't have been built up during the period 1939-1941.
It was the orders from the UK and France that financed the expansion of America's military infrastructure. Your ability to arm yourselves wouldn't have been nearly as well developed, leaving the USA in a very difficult position when attacked by Japan.

The British and French orders are 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. {Martin} 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 Martin Maryland, that we originally had no interest in.

Something to consider here, in 1940 the US made 6,028 aircraft, in 1941 19,445. Only 20% of these aircraft were ordered and used by the USA, mainly because Congress did not wish to spend large sums on defence. The USAAF (Air corps) consisted of 2,500 aircraft on Sept 1 1939, with another 2,400 in Navy service. By Dec 7 1941 there were 6,311 aircraft available, of which 3,305 were in the USAAF, and about 1,200 of the 6,311 were built during 1936 -1939 (P-35, P-36, F2A, TBD,) Even with Roosevelt pushing the expansion of the Armed forces, the Air forces only increased by 1,400. The "Isolationists" who opposed Roosevelt also opposed increased military spending, they felt that it wasn't needed by the US, as long as they stayed out of "foreign entanglements"

On Nov 5 1940 the US aircraft engine manufacturers would be faced with a cancellation of over 16,000 aircraft 20,000 engines, about 80% of their 1941 production. Do you really think that they would refuse an offer to move some of their production to Canada? Or would Kindelburger, Douglas, Martin other aircraft makers close shop flip burgers at the local Cafe? As Glider points out they have invested huge sums of money, without selling all these aircraft they face bankrupcy.

Curtiss Grumman might survive with their US orders, but what about the others? In the fall of 1940 Martin had delivered about 275 Marylands, and had orders for 550 more, plus the British purchasing commision was looking for about 2,500 more light/Medium bombers in '41-'42. At the same time they had a US order for 201 B-26's but it would not go into production until mid '41. Douglas had orders for 144 SBD "Dauntless" 63 "Bostons", but over 1,000 of the Bostons were on order from Britain.

The Engine maker Pratt Whitney already has a plant in Canada, so unless the other manufacturers (Allison, Wright) want to lose orders for 16,000 or so engines to P&W, they would be invited to manufacture north of the border too.

Remember that the "Neutrality Laws" do not forbid the IMPORT of aircraft, only the export. So if Douglas (for example) made the Bostons north of the border, they could export the smaller US order back into the US.

 

[syscom3]

Freebird, in 1939, 1940 and 1941, the US began a series of military buildups. The navy was first with several fiscal authorizations to build and supply a massive "two ocean navy"

In 1941, both the Army and Air Corps received an ever increasing number of funds to expand.

Your scenario doesnt make sense as it never occured in the first place, namely what actually did happen prior to Dec 7th 1941.

 

[Freebird]

Freebird, in 1939, 1940 and 1941, the US began a series of military buildups. The navy was first with several fiscal authorizations to build and supply a massive "two ocean navy"

In 1941, both the Army and Air Corps received an ever increasing number of funds to expand.

Yes Syscom, but the buildup was pushed by Roosevelt his Congressional allies over the objections of the isolationists who didn't want to spend the money. The congress was sharply divided on the question, in 1941 the bill allowing the continuation of the army buildup by the extention of the "Selective Service Act" was passed by one vote. The authorization for the Air Corps to buy 582 P-40 fighters for $12 million was similarly opposed as "overly extravagent excessive" The state of the US military in the fall of 1940 is described by D. Eisenhower as "almost complete military weakness" and the US having "pitifully inadequate defences" {Eisenhower - Crusade in Europe ch 1 pg. 2} The isolationists did not see a great need to change this, as they felt that the US was safe in it's own hemisphere and would not be involved in war in the near future.

Even if the bills to expand the Navy Air Corps in 1941 were passed by Congress, they would be vetoed by the isolationist President. Why would you need an expanded 2 ocean navy if your whole platform was to stay out of wars? The whole point of the buildup is that Roosevelt (supported by his extremely able Army chief Marshall) forsaw that the US could not stay out of the war. The navy air force buildup was needed to support Roosevelt's policies such as opposing Japanese aggression and patrolling the western Atlantic for U-boats, both of which would be cancelled after Jan 1941. The polititians opposing Roosevelt voted against the buildup as they thought it would increase the chance for the US to get into the war. Remember that in Bill's scenario there is no US-German or US-Japan tension as the new isolationist President is also willing to allow Japan to have it's way in the far east.

Your scenario doesnt make sense as it never occured in the first place, namely what actually did happen prior to Dec 7th 1941.

Syscom, I'm just postulating on Bill's hypothetical scenario, if Roosevelt had lost the 1940 election to the "America First" isolationist gang. The buildup was pushed by Roosevelt Marshall over the OPPOSITION of the "isolationist" group, who were against increased military funding. If Pearl Harbour had not happened (ie. US still neutral) then the huge US military buildup would not happen in 1942. In 1941, even with Roosevelt pushing a massively expanded military buildup the US still aquired only 20% of the 19,445 aircraft built in the USA. In the fall of 1940, with the aircraft companies looking forward to losing 80% of next year's sales by being prevented from selling to the UK, they have to make plans to salvage their business. They can't wait until Nov 44 for a new President. You can't logically put forward a scenario in which the US government is isolationist to save money avoid war and then say that they would support a buildup bigger than Roosevelt's.

 

[Rich46yo]

Ive always shied away from saying the "USA saved" anyone. To do so, I believe, undermines the sacrifices made by our allies in the war. I will say this however, that without the US entering the war it would be a vastly different Europe today.

I dont believe Britain would have been able to dislodge the Germans from the mainland. The Normandy landings alone deployed about an equal amount of Yank and Commonwealth troops and its hard to imagine the British going it alone. In manpower, naval hulls, aircraft deployed...ect

Would the Brits gamble so many eggs in their basket for mainland Europe? I dont believe so.

Instead I believe they would have adhered to a military policy of containment much as we did in later years with the Soviet Union. If anything they probably would have risked amphib OPs in places like Norway, the Med., or North Africa, where they would have been in more a position of strength. More so at least compared to taking on the Nazi war machine on the Euro mainland.

Fascinating isnt it? The twists and turns History takes while on the heels of fate.

 

[syscom3]

Yes Syscom, but the buildup was pushed by Roosevelt his Congressional allies over the objections of the isolationists who didn't want to spend the money. The congress was sharply divided on the question, in 1941 the bill allowing the continuation of the army buildup by the extention of the "Selective Service Act" was passed by one vote. The authorization for the Air Corps to buy 582 P-40 fighters for $12 million was similarly opposed as "overly extravagent excessive" The state of the US military in the fall of 1940 is described by D. Eisenhower as "almost complete military weakness" and the US having "pitifully inadequate defences" {Eisenhower - Crusade in Europe ch 1 pg. 2} The isolationists did not see a great need to change this, as they felt that the US was safe in it's own hemisphere and would not be involved in war in the near future.[/quote

But in the end, money was authorized. It didnt matter if it was by one vote, because the majority was for rearming.

Even if the bills to expand the Navy Air Corps in 1941 were passed by Congress, they would be vetoed by the isolationist President. Why would you need an expanded 2 ocean navy if your whole platform was to stay out of wars?

Because many people saw that military weakness was futile in the face of three hostile powers. You can rearm AND still stay neutral.

Remember that in Bill's scenario there is no US-German or US-Japan tension as the new isolationist President is also willing to allow Japan to have it's way in the far east.

This is my thread and scenario. There is no doubt that the Japanese WOULD attack the US at Hawaii and the Philipines as planned, due to the military necessities of securing the sea's and the flanks of their empire.

 

[Freebird]

But in the end, money was authorized. It didnt matter if it was by one vote, because the majority was for rearming.

Partly because they were pushed by the President.

My point is that the Re-armament bill was opposed by the Isolationists, if they won the election in 1940 on that policy, they couldn't turn around and propose a buildup 4 or 5 times as big as Roosevelts. If the president does not sign the bill for buildup, it does not happen (not veto-proof). Even with Roosevelt pushing a big build-up, the US government only authorized the Air Corps/Navy to get about 2,500 aircraft per year in 1940 1941. The aircraft companies are still faced with losing over 16,000 aircraft orders for 1941.

Because many people saw that military weakness was futile in the face of three hostile powers. You can rearm AND still stay neutral.

It makes sense to you and me, but The Isolationists did not see it that way, they the general public were opposed to spending vast amounts of money on re-armament. The problem with your logic is that the "3 powers" would not be hostile, because the US would not be involved in affairs outside the Western Hemisphere.

This is my thread and scenario. There is no doubt that the Japanese WOULD attack the US at Hawaii and the Philipines as planned, due to the military necessities of securing the sea's and the flanks of their empire.

Not trying to hi-jack your thread, I was just responding to Bill's question about strict neutrality. If the US brought back the Neutrality laws, it would (as Glider pointed out) either force the aircraft makers to re-locate, or some would go bankrupt.

Are you suggesting that the US still embargo's oil steel to Japan but does not enter a European war? Japan did NOT attack the US to secure their flanks, it was ONLY because of the crippling embargos that they attacked in 1941, the Japanese army would otherwise have preferred to concentrate on China or Japan.

So what exactly is your scenario? The US is neutral? Is it that the US will concentrate on the Pacific, not entering a European war?

Is the USA embargoing oil to Japan? Is the 1940 policy "Cash Carry"? And at what point in time does the US policy change?