Did the US save Europe in WW2?

renrich said:

I would like to hear from some of you what you think the consequences would have been if the US wasn't involved in WW2 and Nazi Germany had nuclear bombs in 1946-47.

Click to expand...

There wouldn't be an Israel ,Stalingrad would have a glassy surface and so on

Given realistic situations where Japan still attacks the U.S, forcing the U.S into the Pacific war thus freeing up British troops that would have otherwise had to be diverted to the Far East - the British Commonwealth and U.S.S.R alliance would have eventually defeated Germany.

Timshatz has actually hit the nail on the head; there's no dead certainty as to what would have really happened. There's only an idea which could be way off for everyone, and anyone. And Britain is part of Europe, as much as we hate to be so. Instantly, you've changed the argument from Europe to Continental Europe. Which kind of makes me making a point ... really pointless - because I think the idea of "America saving Britain" being a load of crap and don't care about Continental Europe.

Given the fact that syscom has accepted a continuation of lend-lease then the Soviet Union retains the supplies given to it by the U.S.A during World War II - meaning the efforts on the Eastern Front would have been a replica of true to life.
The airwar over Great Britain and North-West Europe would have been an exact replica until late 1942 when U.S air forces began albeit slowly to make a difference in weight of attack. This meant that the RAF was on the offensive in European skies - which lays the way for the offensive on the ground which was being achieved in North Africa ... and, even given U.S lend-lease (as syscom has stated), there would be a victory there as Operation Torch was only a mild component of the victory - it was all for the British 8th Army.

For "lack of manpower" - the British Empire Commonwealth had more people than the U.S or Germany for the war effort. The need to train and equip them simply means the war would have dragged on longer.

Britain would have been pounding away at German targets longer; and as the war developed the means to hit these targets with greater weight and precision would have been developed. Meaning the German oil refineries and production plants would have been suffering Grand Slam strikes before 1945 was out.

And for the nuclear bomb ... no. British intelligence knew all about any German nuclear bomb plans and it would have been shut down. Plus if the U.S were not there to develop the weapon, Britain would have put resources into it. Since Britain was in the early idea stage before the war and handed all the information to the U.S.

syscom3 said:

EMAC, I think a war between Japan and Russia would end up in a Japanese defeat, with little change in the situation in the east

The IJA was strictly light infantry. And its tanks and artillery found to be "wanting" in many ascpects.

Click to expand...

Maybe so Sys but it would still have been a 2 front war if this border problems had esculated to full blown war. Finland didn't have an overall advantage of mechanized equipment either in 1939 yet had defeated Russian Troops with little they did have until overwhelming numbers of USSR Troops swung the war into Russia's favour. And considering that given USSR capability was curtailed by Stalin Himself on the Red Army as seen not only in the Finnish War but also in Operation Barbarosa and earlier stages of those battles where Russian Mechanized Armour suffered badly due to operational command having been eliminated earlier by Stalin. To demiss the IJA Sys so easily as you have done is understandable to your way of thinking but I added this variables as there are other effecting situations that could have possibley occured.


And I did include with those other variables and scenerios that if Mussolini had decided to remain neutral like that of Franco's Spain and the Axis hadn't developed as such of WW2 how would this have effected Germany with no Italy in North Africa or the need for an Afrika Corp as Germany wasn't capable of invading England let alone invading North African Coast to insert Afrika Corps. Germany on her own had limitations as well Sys and did require her own Allies in the Axis. It wasn't all Germany during WW2. For me I am just expounding further into your set scene scenerio

plan_D said:

Given realistic situations where Japan still attacks the U.S, forcing the U.S into the Pacific war thus freeing up British troops that would have otherwise had to be diverted to the Far East - the British Commonwealth and U.S.S.R alliance would have eventually defeated Germany.

Click to expand...

Not so fast..... just because you had forces in Asia doesnt mean they were equiped for or in numbers necessary for them to be fighting in Europe.

Under no circumstance, could I see extensive US forces fighting in the CBI. Even in 1942, there were quite a few Americans and govt officials that saw no reason to fight for British colonial purposes.

Timshatz has actually hit the nail on the head; there's no dead certainty as to what would have really happened. There's only an idea which could be way off for everyone, and anyone. And Britain is part of Europe, as much as we hate to be so. Instantly, you've changed the argument from Europe to Continental Europe. Which kind of makes me making a point ... really pointless - because I think the idea of "America saving Britain" being a load of crap and don't care about Continental Europe.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence that the UK had the resources necessary to defeat the Germans alone. Fact is, it was US industrial suprememcy and manpower that tipped the scales in favor of the allies. Like I said, only the USSR had the capacity to defeat the Germans, and even untill 1944, that was not a given.

Given the fact that syscom has accepted a continuation of lend-lease then the Soviet Union retains the supplies given to it by the U.S.A during World War II - meaning the efforts on the Eastern Front would have been a replica of true to life.

Click to expand...

Lend Lease helped to a point. And if the US was not going to fight in Europe, all convoys would be manned by british ships and men. And that meant the Atlantic was going to be stretched to the breaking point. It was also the US/British forces fighting in the Med in 1942 that tied up the Germans to some degree.

The airwar over Great Britain and North-West Europe would have been an exact replica until late 1942 when U.S air forces began albeit slowly to make a difference in weight of attack. This meant that the RAF was on the offensive in European skies - which lays the way for the offensive on the ground which was being achieved in North Africa ... and, even given U.S lend-lease (as syscom has stated), there would be a victory there as Operation Torch was only a mild component of the victory - it was all for the British 8th Army.

Click to expand...

The RAF did a fine job in 1942 and for 1/2 of 1943..... but untill the P38's and P51's went deep into Germany, the RAF was not contributing to the attrition of the LW.

For "lack of manpower" - the British Empire Commonwealth had more people than the U.S or Germany for the war effort. The need to train and equip them simply means the war would have dragged on longer.

Click to expand...

Not true. WW2 was a technical/industrial war. You had lots of bodies from your colonies, but they were mostly illiterate, and of dubious loyalties. And then how are you going to train them, equip them and get them to the battlefront before Germany advances even further in its technological adavantages?

Britain would have been pounding away at German targets longer; and as the war developed the means to hit these targets with greater weight and precision would have been developed. Meaning the German oil refineries and production plants would have been suffering Grand Slam strikes before 1945 was out.

Click to expand...

Untill you defeated the LW, then your bombers were going to take ever increasing loss's, to the point you could not make good the losses.

And for the nuclear bomb ... no. British intelligence knew all about any German nuclear bomb plans and it would have been shut down. Plus if the U.S were not there to develop the weapon, Britain would have put resources into it. Since Britain was in the early idea stage before the war and handed all the information to the U.S.

Click to expand...

Germany developing an atomic bomb is problematic. One thing for sure though.... Only the US had the industrial and scientific capacity to develope it on our own (yes I know the contributions from the Brit scientists).

I'm not saying that the U.S would move into the CBI - the U.S made little contribution to the CBI theatre as it was. My comment was made to point out that Britain would not need to bolster the CBI theatre as Japan would be fighting the U.S in the PTO just like what historically occured.

Great Britain alone did not have the resources to fight Germany; but Great Britain, her Empire and her Commonwealth did. Canada alone would have kept Britain supplied; you under-estimate the power of the British Commonwealth in the 1940s. There is no evidence that the British Commonwealth didn't have the industrial capacity to defeat Germany; it's all over-shadowed by the U.S industry. But the fact remains that Britain and her Commonwealth out-produced Germany.

British and Commonwealth men and ships would man the Atlantic convoys; that's a lot of men. The Med would have been won without the U.S additional strength - the U.S presence just made it easier.

The RAF did a fine job throughout the entirety of the war, while losing a lot we maintained the pressure and more importantly the offensive. The RAF bombed by day and night; it was only the lack of effective equipment that prevented a better result. Unfortunately the British lacked the foresight to introduce the Mosquito in 1940. But even so, the British bombing campaign was extensive and the Luftwaffe was feeling it from the Eastern and Western fronts. The RAF hit Cologne before America was even in the war; is that deep enough into Germany for you?

That whole "dubious loyalties" is crap, sorry. The colonies and Commonwealth were going to fight; they continue to say now that they'd have fought on and on to victory under the Union Jack. There were plenty of bodies; which as I said would take time training and equipping but it would have been done. Germany was not so far advanced over Britain in the most important area which is the air, so Britain and Germany would just be maintaining an equal balance.

The British and her Commonwealth would maintain the losses a lot longer than the Germans - especially since they'd be fighting on the Eastern Front too. With the development of better strike platforms and better weapons themselves, the German industry would feel the payloads in ever increasing numbers with more devestating accuracy. The RAF would cripple the Axis industry ... and win the war.

In real terms, the Allies didn't need to collapse the Axis industry but it could have been done.

syscom3 said:

Not so fast..... just because you had forces in Asia doesnt mean they were equiped for or in numbers necessary for them to be fighting in Europe.

Under no circumstance, could I see extensive US forces fighting in the CBI. Even in 1942, there were quite a few Americans and govt officials that saw no reason to fight for British colonial purposes.



There is no evidence that the UK had the resources necessary to defeat the Germans alone. Fact is, it was US industrial suprememcy and manpower that tipped the scales in favor of the allies. Like I said, only the USSR had the capacity to defeat the Germans, and even untill 1944, that was not a given.



Lend Lease helped to a point. And if the US was not going to fight in Europe, all convoys would be manned by british ships and men. And that meant the Atlantic was going to be stretched to the breaking point. It was also the US/British forces fighting in the Med in 1942 that tied up the Germans to some degree.



The RAF did a fine job in 1942 and for 1/2 of 1943..... but untill the P38's and P51's went deep into Germany, the RAF was not contributing to the attrition of the LW.



Not true. WW2 was a technical/industrial war. You had lots of bodies from your colonies, but they were mostly illiterate, and of dubious loyalties. And then how are you going to train them, equip them and get them to the battlefront before Germany advances even further in its technological adavantages?




Untill you defeated the LW, then your bombers were going to take ever increasing loss's, to the point you could not make good the losses.



Germany developing an atomic bomb is problematic. One thing for sure though.... Only the US had the industrial and scientific capacity to develope it on our own (yes I know the contributions from the Brit scientists).

Click to expand...

Not so fast Sys. This is conjecture only if the US had not entered WW2 when it did. I have purposed several other scenerios to this. One being Japan and you demissed them as light infantry without substantial mechanized support. You didn't take into the scene that Japan had a good Air Force and their troops were excellant in combat. The scene I purposed if the Manchurian situation had blown out to full scale war between USSR and Japan without the added attacks planned by Japan on rest of Asia and Pacific. And that Japan had diverted all her military excluding of her navy but including her naval air wing to Manchuria to fight the Russians what would have been to consquences for Russia fighting full scale war on 2 fronts some 8 to 10,000 miles apart?

And other scenerios i have put forward is that if Italy had remained neutral like that of Spain? How would the Battles in the Mediterrain been conducted and African Campaign without Italy and African Campaign would not have occured and Britain and her Commonwealth would not have had to divert Troops to Africa or the Asian Pacific region if you take into the above mentioned scenerio of Russia/Japan. Would Germany had declared war on Poland with one of her Allies remaining neutral and another busy fighting the Russians. Or again if Japan had obeyed the League of Nations and withdrawn all her Troops from Asia and decided to stay neutral and became less war like as trade for raw materials would have resumed via international trade with US Britian and Japan saw benefits in this at the time? And in same scenerio Russia didn't have a border dispute or war with Japan. How would this effect Germany? 2 of her Major Allies remaining neutral and Germany singled out in Europe for breaches of the Versailles Treaty.

There are many variables to what your thread is purposing Sys and I have thought about this and came up with other possible scenerios of my own besides the US not taking part in WW2 either in Europe or Asia Pacific. Question is Sys would Germany had been secure in herself to have launched attacks on Poland without Italy and Japan as Allies? If USSR had decided no they were not going to split Poland up with Germany but fight Germany right from 1939 if Germany had invaded Poland. Would have Germany engaged with War on Poland if this was the case? And if Germany had invaded Poland, USSR had retaliated and sent troops to aid Poland. England and France declaring War on Germany. And in this scenerio Germany faces war on 2 fronts. One from the East the other from the West in 1939/1940. With France and England crossing the Dutch French and Belguim borders and Russia attacking via Poland.

Your response draw from the situations that did occur Sys in some cases, but without the US in the mix. I am supposing a totally different idea and taking it a few steps further then you have done.


Another thing Sys Commonwealth Troops as you are making out were not all that undisciplined Malay and Indian Troops performed gallantly during WORLD WAR 2 as in the Malay Campaign and defended Singapore later. And Gurhka Troops were known for their tenacity in battle during both WW1 and WW2 and high discipline having been trained by the British Army. Along with the Bengal Lancers and other Indian Regiments. So becareful of demissing Commonwealth Troops so flipantly just because their origins were not exactly Anglo Saxon. Sikhs Hindis Tamils and other Indians made excellent Troops in the British Empire. South Africans New Zealanders Australians and Canadians also had native contingents in their forces as well Sys. For example the Maori Regiments from New Zealand who proved themselves both in WW1 and WW2. And if the above scenerios that I have envisaged had occured these troops would have certainly been used by England with France Russia attacking Germany in 1939/40 scene had played out in my post in paragraph 3. I think Sys you are purely looking at this as an American. Which means of course they are your views on this purposed events and they are neither right or wrong. Just how you envisage it. I on the other hand view it as an Australian and member of the Commonwealth have taken it further and put into it other possible outcomes. one thing Sys I thank you for putting this thread up. Gives me a chance to look at WW2 in another way and put my own ideas and conjectures across to you.

plan_D said:

I'm not saying that the U.S would move into the CBI - the U.S made little contribution to the CBI theatre as it was. My comment was made to point out that Britain would not need to bolster the CBI theatre as Japan would be fighting the U.S in the PTO just like what historically occured.

Great Britain alone did not have the resources to fight Germany; but Great Britain, her Empire and her Commonwealth did. Canada alone would have kept Britain supplied; you under-estimate the power of the British Commonwealth in the 1940s. There is no evidence that the British Commonwealth didn't have the industrial capacity to defeat Germany; it's all over-shadowed by the U.S industry. But the fact remains that Britain and her Commonwealth out-produced Germany.

British and Commonwealth men and ships would man the Atlantic convoys; that's a lot of men. The Med would have been won without the U.S additional strength - the U.S presence just made it easier.

The RAF did a fine job throughout the entirety of the war, while losing a lot we maintained the pressure and more importantly the offensive. The RAF bombed by day and night; it was only the lack of effective equipment that prevented a better result. Unfortunately the British lacked the foresight to introduce the Mosquito in 1940. But even so, the British bombing campaign was extensive and the Luftwaffe was feeling it from the Eastern and Western fronts. The RAF hit Cologne before America was even in the war; is that deep enough into Germany for you?

That whole "dubious loyalties" is crap, sorry. The colonies and Commonwealth were going to fight; they continue to say now that they'd have fought on and on to victory under the Union Jack. There were plenty of bodies; which as I said would take time training and equipping but it would have been done. Germany was not so far advanced over Britain in the most important area which is the air, so Britain and Germany would just be maintaining an equal balance.

The British and her Commonwealth would maintain the losses a lot longer than the Germans - especially since they'd be fighting on the Eastern Front too. With the development of better strike platforms and better weapons themselves, the German industry would feel the payloads in ever increasing numbers with more devestating accuracy. The RAF would cripple the Axis industry ... and win the war.

In real terms, the Allies didn't need to collapse the Axis industry but it could have been done.

Click to expand...

I will have to agree with Plan on this Sys in certain areas. The Empire was indeed made up of various people. And you have not taken into consideration that Canada Australia South Africa Malaya India New Zealand etc supplied not only raw material but men and equipment as well. Canada like Plan has said could of maintained England in Food Supplies Raw materials and other services and did so prior to the US joining WW2. And at this time the Italian Navy was virtually destroyed in the Med without the use of the USN to help and was achieved by the Royal Navy and her Commonwealth Navies. And it was British and Commonwealth Forces who defeated the Italians Germans and Vichy French in North Africa and Middle East. Even though the English and Commonwealth Nations had incured losses in Greece and Cyprus Campaigns. Even in this England insured her acess to OIL from the Middle East and kept the Suez Canal opened to the British and Commonwealth Fleets and Merchant Navies. And if the US had not joined in WW2 what makes you believe that the British didn't have the intelligence to conduct a war with the resource of all the Empire at her disposal? The English were not exactly short of brains during and prior to WW2 Sys and had developed weapons systems to their own apart from the US. And as some one has pointed out that England had the ability in science to develop weapons and possible other types of non conventional weapons. You seem to forget Frank Whittle had already developed jet engine technology and that the Gloster Meteor was in production and serving with the RAF in 1944/5. when exactly did the US develop jet aircraft that were beyond testing again Sys?

And as Plan has pointed out Sys the RAF had already delievered strikes into Germany with 1000 Bomber raids into Germany without the aid of the USAAF 8th Air Force. No one is saying that the US being in WW2 wasn't a valued service to the Allied Nations but do not under estimate the English or her then Empire which you seem to be doing Sys. It smacks or arrogance a little Sys

"the U.S made little contribution to the CBI theatre as it was."

And what little contribution they did have backfired on the USA in the end....
Dare I say south Indo China.

The Lend / Lease scheme... I've a question

America staying out of WWII, did the lend/lease scheme drag it's ecomomy out of depression ?

Could it therefor be said that Europe saved America from economic disaster ? and geared up it's industry, making it more capable of responding following the Japanese attack ? and thus saved America from military disaster ?

Simon

Emac44 said:

Even though the English and Commonwealth Nations ......Even in this England insured her ..... The English were not exactly short of brains .....that England had the ability .....do not under estimate the English

Click to expand...

I may be English.. but it's Britain and the British Empire....

Please do the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish a favour and include them...

Simon

bomber said:

"the U.S made little contribution to the CBI theatre as it was."

And what little contribution they did have backfired on the USA in the end....
Dare I say south Indo China.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant to this discussion.

America staying out of WWII, did the lend/lease scheme drag it's ecomomy out of depression ?

Click to expand...

The thread is if the US stayed out of the war in Europe, not out of WW2. A Japanese attack would have caused the idustrial mobilization of the US to the same effect.

plan_D said:

I'm not saying that the U.S would move into the CBI - the U.S made little contribution to the CBI theatre as it was. My comment was made to point out that Britain would not need to bolster the CBI theatre as Japan would be fighting the U.S in the PTO just like what historically occured.

Click to expand...

But you would still need to defend Burma and India untill mid 1943 when the US had finally mobilized. And those are forces that would not be available for use in the ETO/MTO, thus relieving pressure on the Germans

Great Britain alone did not have the resources to fight Germany; but Great Britain, her Empire and her Commonwealth did. Canada alone would have kept Britain supplied; you under-estimate the power of the British Commonwealth in the 1940s. There is no evidence that the British Commonwealth didn't have the industrial capacity to defeat Germany; it's all over-shadowed by the U.S industry. But the fact remains that Britain and her Commonwealth out-produced Germany.

Click to expand...

Only the UK had the large industrial centers of the empire. Canada's was quite small. Australia's and SA's was non existant. And as events proved, your economy was maxed out by 1943 with a general inability to expand with any large degree.

I simply see no possibility of the British Empire to build the vast numbers of shipping neededto offset the U-boat losses and transport the colonial troops around the world, let alone equip them.

And that doesnt take into account building the armoured forces needed to defeat the Germans in any possible invasion. And then again, there was little possibility for the RAF to quadruple in size and maintain its high degree of proficency. You simply didnt have the manpower or undustrial resources to do it.

British and Commonwealth men and ships would man the Atlantic convoys; that's a lot of men. The Med would have been won without the U.S additional strength - the U.S presence just made it easier.

Click to expand...

I never thought the Germans could maintain a presence in Africa.

But again, every sailor you need to man a ship is a man not going to be carrying a rifle or supporting air operations. You simply dont have enough men, period.

The RAF did a fine job throughout the entirety of the war, while losing a lot we maintained the pressure and more importantly the offensive. The RAF bombed by day and night; it was only the lack of effective equipment that prevented a better result. Unfortunately the British lacked the foresight to introduce the Mosquito in 1940. But even so, the British bombing campaign was extensive and the Luftwaffe was feeling it from the Eastern and Western fronts. The RAF hit Cologne before America was even in the war; is that deep enough into Germany for you?

Click to expand...

It was the long range 8th AF fighters that brought the fight to the LW. Untill you had long range fighters to chase them from one part of the Reich to the other, then nothing was going to happen to the strength of the LW.

And it was the day/night bombing campaign that caused the German's major problems. Just bombing by night was not going to do much.

That whole "dubious loyalties" is crap, sorry. The colonies and Commonwealth were going to fight; they continue to say now that they'd have fought on and on to victory under the Union Jack. There were plenty of bodies; which as I said would take time training and equipping but it would have been done.

Click to expand...

You only have a certein ammount of time before the Germans are so advanced technically, that you cannot invade without taking devestating losses.

Lets face it, the Germans were superior in Tanks, AFV's, infantry weapons, and tactics. They were only defeated by superior allied numbers, most of which was contributed by the US

Germany was not so far advanced over Britain in the most important area which is the air, so Britain and Germany would just be maintaining an equal balance.

Click to expand...

Germany was quite advanced in a number of area's.

The British and her Commonwealth would maintain the losses a lot longer than the Germans - especially since they'd be fighting on the Eastern Front too. With the development of better strike platforms and better weapons themselves, the German industry would feel the payloads in ever increasing numbers with more devestating accuracy. The RAF would cripple the Axis industry ... and win the war.

Click to expand...

But the RAF didnt cripple the Germans by themselves, it took several thousand US bombers and fighters to help you along.

And without a credible daylight bombing campaign, the German day fighters could e redeployed to the eastern front and make its presence felt.

In real terms, the Allies didn't need to collapse the Axis industry but it could have been done.

Click to expand...

Not without the US providing the troops and material(s) to enable an allied win.

End result is still the same...... The Brits will never have the industrial or manpower capacity to invade Germany, Germany will never be able to invade Britain. And its a toss up whether Germany wins in the east, or Russia finally beats Germany through sheer attrition.

Yeh you'd have mobilised but too little too late..... All of the Pacific including Hawawi would be Japanese.. and that includes Australia and New Zealand..

If you pull one thread it all comes undone.

The facts are the Sleeping giant wasn't actually asleep but busy making and selling goods to Britain... which you then diverted to your own armed forces even though Britain had orders placed.

Simon

bomber said:

Yeh you'd have mobilised but too little too late..... All of the Pacific including Hawawi would be Japanese.. and that includes Australia and New Zealand..

Click to expand...

What?

The facts are the Sleeping giant wasn't actually asleep but busy making and selling goods to Britain... which you then diverted to your own armed forces even though Britain had orders placed.

Click to expand...

You inventing more facts?

The US wasnt mobilized untill 1943 when the full weight of our shipyards and factories began to be felt. And the amazing thing is, the British economy maxed out around that time to, but the US economy never even showed signs of maxing out at all.

I said German.
OK, perhaps not now any more. It is much more easy to win a war than to control a country, if the people in this country didn`t want (just think of IRAK).
And no one should forget, that Germany was (less or more) bancrupt before the war starts. If the war should have been startet 5 jears later, perhaps WWII would never begun, because the german economy would have been collapsed in between. How we Germans said: They throw out the money out of the window with both hands, to build up there army.

OK, I said German.

Why?

At the end of WWI Great Britain was (less or more) bankrupt.

Because before USA started into the war, Great Britain has had to pay for each screw (and so on), which was transfered from USA to Great Britain.

Between WWI and WWII Great Britain didn`t realy recover from WWI.

At begin of WWII it was the same, they had again to pay for each screw.
In "principle" Great Britain (and the rest of the commenwealth) financated the industrial recovery of the USA.

After short time, UK has lost the war on the continent. They were sitting on there island. OK, they controlled the surface of the atlantic ocean. And without the old american destroyers which they got?
Perhaps they would have lost even this part of the war.
The only thing UK could do were the bombing raids against germany. But these were (less or more) only night bombing raids against big or small towns but not against industrial facilities. What happens if you throw a bomb on a street between two big houses?
both houses were havily damaged or even destroyd.
What happens when you throw a bomb in a big industrial hall?
It makes Booommm.
Some windows were blown out and you have a 10 m hole in the roof but the hall is still standing. And 48 h later the production was restartet.
To totally destroy an industrial facility you have to make a real big and precise bombing raid, this is impossible in night (OK, later with radar on board...). And it is impossible in night raids to totally bomb away a small railway, a railway station a bridge or a street.
Don`t forget, the biggest war production in germany was in the year 1944.
The night bombing raids were devastating the towns and terrorising the civilians. But it was less or more unimportant for earlier finishing the war.

So less or more after Norway, Dunkirk, greece, the british army and british airforce were "unimportant" for germany, they had to sit and to stay on there island and without the transports from USA, the UK would have to capitulate.
The war in africa was not so important for WWII. If you compare this war with the war against russia it was unimportant for germany.

Russia has had another problem. Before the start of the war Stalin kills most of the generals and so on. Less or more they lost there whole army in the western part of russia at the begin of the russian war. They lost whole armys and most of there weapons. They had to transfer there factories from western russia to the eastern parts. But it is not so easy to restart the production of weapons, of trucks and so on.

Without the PQ convoys to russia, the war against russia would have slowly ended in 1942 or 1943.

I have asked some german soldiers, who fought in russia.

They found british aircrafts, they found american aircrafts. They found rifles from Great Britain, ammunition from USA and UK, tinned food from... what do you think? And from where came the fuel?

And much more important, less or more all trucks came from USA and UK. It is nice, if you can produce many tanks.
But, if you can't transport any fuel, ammunition, food and so on...

Perhaps these convoys won the war against germany (of course not alone).

syscom3 said:

What?



You inventing more facts?

The US wasnt mobilized untill 1943 when the full weight of our shipyards and factories began to be felt. And the amazing thing is, the British economy maxed out around that time to, but the US economy never even showed signs of maxing out at all.

Click to expand...

No it's a case of you not being able to follow a conversation...

First it's finally mobilzed, then it's mobilized and finally you say full weight...

What exactly do you mean by mobilise ?... the same as normal people or does it change depending upon the wind direction..

a. To assemble, prepare, or put into operation for or as if for war: mobilize troops; mobilize the snowplows.

b. To assemble, marshal, or coordinate for a purpose: mobilized the country's economic resources.

I understand it's not your first language but are you any clearer now on the English words you're using ?

Simon

Well , just my two cents on this subject.

Trying to make it short, it was American industrial capacity and Russian manpower that defeated Germany.

Let´s create a scenario: First : Japan never attacks Pearl Harbor . (I know some people said already that Pacific Teather has not to do with this discussion, but I strongly disagree.) With that, Germany never declares war on US, and the US never enters "open" war ( They were in fact already involved, which heavy deliveries of war material trough Lend Lease).

Without the complete air and sea supremacy that was only granted by the involvement of America, the British would still have holded preatty well, but any invasion of Fortress Europa was completely doomed. (Ever heard of Dieppe? ) Sure, the Brits would probably win in Afrika, but that would be a 'side" theater of operations, and I don´t believe they would even manage to get to Silicy ( Actually, I feel it is more probable that the Germans would capture Malta). Remember that without the war turning so bad to Italy as it did in real life, Mussolini would probably retain power. Italy would still be fighting the Brits much longer than it did in real life. It has been stated here that the Brits were already in the offensive when 42 started. Truth, but I don´t believe that this would be a big, decisive and winning offensive without US involvement. For example the air offensive was mild and almost tatic in nature and did not really had a strategic effect like from 43 on.

The continent would be strongly in German hands, and the outcome of the conflict would be dependent on the results of the battles in Russia. It is impossible to predict exactly, but I don´t thing that the Soviet Union alone would managed to defeat the germans all the way to Berlin. Most likely, the war would drag on with heavy losses on both sides.

Consider that many factors that helped the Soviets would be absent, or would loose force: 1 – The enormous amount of war material delivered by US and England would be, at least, considerably small than it was. Some said that they would remain the same , trough Lend Lease. I disagree. With allowed American arming itself AND delivering weapon to the soviets at the same time was the fact that America was in a state of war. Without that, the economy would have other priorities also, and the ammount of material shipped to the soviets would inevitabily be smaller. As it has also been pointed , all the transport convoys would be be british, further complicating thinks… 2 – Without the threat of immediate invasion many german troops on occupation duty not only in France but also in Norway and the Balkans could had been used. 3 – The heavy effort to fight allied aerial bombing, demanding the use not only of thousands of fighters , but also thousand of AAA guns and crews would be sigficant smaller, again freeing german resources to the east front. Plus, the damage made would also be smaller, and Nazi industrial production would benefit.

It is open to discussion, but my bet is that the germans would at some point occupy both Moscou and/or the Caucasus ( with Stalingrad) but Russian defenses would not crumble and you would have a draw.

Not to mention that whit Japan not involved in fighting US, they are still a credible force against the eastern Russian flank, further complicating soviet ability to move resources.

By 1947 we would be in the middle of hard sea and air battles in West Europe, but most of the focus would be on the ground in the east front. At some point in time the germans would get nukes and there is a good probability they would use them against Soviet Union…

RATHED said:

Well , just my two cents on this subject.

Trying to make it short, it was American industrial capacity and Russian manpower that defeated Germany.

…

Click to expand...

Thats a good way of putting it.

Take out the US industrial output, then Germany has a better than 50-50 chance of winning.

The CBI theatre would be an exact replica of the real events; which relieves troops in 1945 as the war with Germany would still be ongoing.

Canada provided thousands of aircraft, tanks and trucks to the Allied war effort - their industry was not huge, but more than capable of expansion. And India, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa all provided resources, men and machine to the war effort.
The British Empire had more men than the U.S - that's a simple fact. So, man power was not to be a problem. You're thinking of what did happen, rather than what could have happened. The U.S provided all these men and material - so Britain didn't have to; it doesn't mean Britain didn't have the people at its disposal.
On top of that, the Soviet Union would still be pressurising the German forces in the East. And the RAF was in a good position for offensives during 1943 - and I say again, we bombed by day and night.

The fact is; a Soviet and British alliance had more industrial capacity than Germany and had more men. In the war of attrition - they'd lose and that's what it became.

Germany weren't that far advanced; 1945 - Britain had the Centurion; equal to any German AFV. We had fighters equal to any of the Luftwaffe; tactical bombers that were superior; and strategic bombers that were far superior. Our electronics were always one step ahead. Germany was never going to have a massive technical advantage.

The RAF if needed to, would have eventually been sending escorted heavy raids by day to Germany - but we didn't need to, 'cos America was doing it.

plan_D said:

The CBI theatre would be an exact replica of the real events; which relieves troops in 1945 as the war with Germany would still be ongoing.

Canada provided thousands of aircraft, tanks and trucks to the Allied war effort - their industry was not huge, but more than capable of expansion. And India, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa all provided resources, men and machine to the war effort.
The British Empire had more men than the U.S - that's a simple fact. So, man power was not to be a problem. You're thinking of what did happen, rather than what could have happened. The U.S provided all these men and material - so Britain didn't have to; it doesn't mean Britain didn't have the people at its disposal.
On top of that, the Soviet Union would still be pressurising the German forces in the East. And the RAF was in a good position for offensives during 1943 - and I say again, we bombed by day and night.

The fact is; a Soviet and British alliance had more industrial capacity than Germany and had more men. In the war of attrition - they'd lose and that's what it became.

Germany weren't that far advanced; 1945 - Britain had the Centurion; equal to any German AFV. We had fighters equal to any of the Luftwaffe; tactical bombers that were superior; and strategic bombers that were far superior. Our electronics were always one step ahead. Germany was never going to have a massive technical advantage.

The RAF if needed to, would have eventually been sending escorted heavy raids by day to Germany - but we didn't need to, 'cos America was doing it.

Click to expand...

And also Plan the fact that the English including Scots Irish and Welsh had already cracked the Enigma Codes of the German Army Navy and Luftwaffe and its civilian radio traffic as well. England had an advantage of knowing where Germany would deploy its forces. And this information would have been passed onto the USSR instead of the USA. Also the use of Radar would have been given to the USSR instead of the USA for its Naval Fleets.

And what I find amazing is some consider that the RAF Bomber Command made no significant contribution to the defeat of Germany during WW2. One forum chatter even suggested that Germany's overall production increased in 1944. See the year 1944 and he singled out the RAF as being non productive. If I remember correctly the USAAF 8th AirForce was conducting daylight raids into Germany at this time and their contribution would have be ineffective going by the increase of German War Production. These people think the Norden Bomb sight was the bloody bee knees in targetting during WW2. It bloody well wasn't and was more ineffective during daylight mission then what the RAF was using at night. It appears some have forgotten the advent of the Path Finder Squadrons from Bomber Command and were used effectively during WW2 at night. We might take this opportunity to remind our US cousins of the severe losses incured by the USAAF 8th Air Force on their bomber crews prior to the introduction of Long Range Fighter Escorts Mustangs and these losses still occured to USAAF Bomber Crews despite the fighter escorts etc. And without the British Merlin Engine the Mustang would have been nothing more than a low level fighter bomber and as such the Americans would have continued with heavy losses. It wasn't the RAF who had problems supplying Bomber Crews and Aircraft and transporting the same across the Atlantic during WW2 and production levels as aircraft like the Lancaster Short Sterling and Halifax were being produced locally mostly in England and that Bomber Crews were volunteering from all over the Commonwealth and Great Britian.

As for countries like Australia Sys the production of raw materials increased during WW2 to supply the Nation and the Commonwealth in the War Effort. You obviously think the USA was the only industrialized nation in the world and your comments about the Commonwealth being maxed out are bizzare if not a little insulting. Production of steel iron ore coal food material for war increased in this country 3 years before the USA ever set foot in WW2 And same as did what occured in Canada South Africa and Rhodesia Also the production of oil rubber tin and other valuable resources increased. Sys you obviously think the British Empire was helpless and hapless without the USA prior to WW2 and during the early stages of WW2.

I think this thread has gone from recriminations about the contributions of Great Britian and her Commonwealth and is turning into the same old bullshit with a different label once more. No one wins wars without the USA involved the usual crap that insults other nations again.

You want to know who defeated the Germans. Well it was the USSR who defeated the Germans during WW2 with of course the help she received from all Allied Nations. No way would Germany had prevailed against Russia. They the Germans made the same mistake at the gates of Moscow as Napoleon did in the war of 1812. And it was the USSR who pushed the Germans all the way back to Berlin and took Berlin without the assistence of the US or Great Britian or the rest of the Allied Nations. And it was not until June 6th 1944 D Day that the 2nd front Stalin had been asking for actually took place. It is my belief even if D Day had not occured it would have made no difference to the USSR and same result would have occured with or without the USA being involved in WW2.

And it appears our US cousins still think the German Army was all armed on the Eastern Front with up to date mechanized armour and regiments and supply was all mechanized. Simple cases show the the Vaunted Tiger and Panther Tanks being used by the Germans in some cases were ineffective and were prone to mechanical failure and that the Germans had failed to recognise the Feared Russian Winter that froze engine lubricants in the crank case of engines. And also the Allies to the Germans like Romainians Italians etc were under armed and were undisciplined on the flanks of the vaunted German Army. And in more than one case horse and cart transport was still being used by the German Army for supply of its troops on the Eastern Front. Quiet frankly I dispair with these blatant over sights about the German Military in Russia. By members in this forum and from what one hears from others who belittle the USSRs efforts in WW2 and belittle the efforts of the UK and her Commonwealth.

And before you claim Sys that Japan would have interferred with the Commonwealth Nations in the Asia Pacific Regions. Well in accordance with this thread there would have been no Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbour or Philippines Malaya or Singapore or Dutch East Indies as neither Japan or US would have been involved in the War. It wasn't until December 7th 1941 that Japan came involved and consquently the US and Germany and Italy declaring war on US one to 2 days later.

And I believe Sys is over estimating that Germany had a better than 50 50 chance of winning WW2 without the US being in WW2. I wouldn't even give them a rating of that high as their own productions were dismal and that they rushed into production weapons that had not even been trialled in near combat conditions. As for example Tiger Panther and the Elephant Assault Tanks proved at times to be ineffective in Russian Territory and the bloody things broke down on more then on a few occassions. As for their Air Force they couldn't even supply their men trapped in Stalingrad and sustain those troops of Paulus 6th Army. Their aircraft fighters most capable were also limited to range and their heaviest bombers in use were limited not only by range bombing carrying but also engines as they were restricted to 2 engines in most cases. Their Stuka dive bombers were easy targets to any fighter British or Russian.

And it was the British who developed specialized attacks on Germany during WW2 using her 4 engined heavy bombers and again it was the British who developed anti submarine warfare to a higher degree with her Royal Navy Fleets in the Atlantic And anti submarine long ranged aircraft using another British invention called RADAR which equiped RAF Coastal Command AirCraft Squadrons and something the British would not have shared with the US but would have shared with the USSR instead. Another of those things would have been any advancement of Nuclear Power or Jet Air Craft technology and such simple things later as Jet Air Craft Ejection Seats for aeroplanes would not have been shared with the USA either Plan. Just some of the little things Plan that Sys ignores or belittles about the British ability to wage a proper war against Germany

Hi Emac and PlanD. Not that I don´t agree with some of the things you said, but I will repeat to you the claim PlanD made: I believe you are "thinking of what did happen, rather than what could have happened." .

You are completing forgeting the cumulative effect the pressure of so many enemies had on Germany. Take out the US out of equation and they would have done better, while England would be under more pressure than it was in "our" world, and would have done worse. That extends to weapons development. For example, the Tiger "might' ( and that is all we can say, since we are speculating here) been developed in a better way. The british bomber force would not be so strong or competent, since the LW would have a bigger offensive strength and UK would have to give a bigger priority to fighter and defensive measures than it did. And so on, and so on... The point to emphasize here is the cumulative effect. I could point literally THOUSANDS of small thing the allies had going for them that would be absent if it was not for American involvement.

That all said, let me make clear that UK would still be very important, and yeah , they would probably even be more advanced in technology. But they would NOT have a major ground front to fight in, at least not until Russia had seriously depleted Nazi capability. That is because amphibious landings, be in Norway, the Balkans, Italy or France, would be impossible and doomed if it was not for the complete air and sea superiority. And the UK would not have obtained that for many years, if it was not for American involvement. And without a serious possibility of having a two front GROUND war, Germany would manage its resources better.

In a sea and air war the Brits would cause a lot of damage to Germany. But even if it was important, it would never be enough to win the war by itself. Bottom line, you also need the boots on the ground to close the deal.

Would the German outright win? Of course not! Did America "saved" the UK? Of course not! What I believe is that the Nazis would manage to retain control in western Europa despite british efforts to the contrary, and the war would drag and be decided in the east. It is impossible to say what would be the exact outcome, maybe even an cease-fire or a decades long conflict… By the way, consider that I am NOT American.