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.
Why is time not unlimited. The Allies were going to fight until the war was over whether it was 1945 or 1948. If the USA didn't join the fight in Europe then it would of taken time for the UK to build up its forces with those of the Commonwealth. This would of taken time (it took the US 3 years to build up its forces so it is feasible that it would of taken the Commonwealth a similar length of time). An invasion would of still been possible, the Commonwealth could produce as much as America as has already been said so supplies of equipment should of been alright. An invasion may of taken longer to develop and prepare for but it would of still occured. The Russians were forcing things in Europe because of their situation. Hitler would still of acted as irrationally as he did (which means he still might of declared war on America - similar way to how the US got involved in WW1) but this would of happened later. If the Balkans delay had still occured then Barbarossa would still of failed at the gates of Moscow and with the resultant plans going ahead the Germans would still of become bogged down in Russia. It would of taken longer for one of the sides to win (particularly the Russians). With Churchill animosity towards the Russians it is likely the borders would of been different post war had the result of the war been the same (borders further East).

Europe was dominated by Germany even with the US's industrial and manpower contributions until 1944, without the contribution Germany would of dominated for longer and I believe the Russians would of been unable to advance as fast (lack of American trucks).
 
I'm just adding this for info Canada produced the second largest amount of military vehicles after the US at 800k plus
10000 artillery
250 k machine guns
16000 aircraft
but our largest contribution was nickle which at the time we had the worlds largest mines and without it no armour as well as Uranium and radium which was handy for Manhattan
But without US particpation very few of the aircraft we built would have Instruments or engines
 
Gnomey said:
Why is time not unlimited. The Allies were going to fight until the war was over whether it was 1945 or 1948.
Click to expand...

Because of the German jets, rockets, and advanced U-boats were going to make things far more difficult for the Commonwealth countries to deal with.


Incorrect. The vast industrial and technical infastructure that would need to be built and brought up to production would be a vast undertaking. Try decades.


You need steel mills and shipyards to build up your invasion fleet. Your industrial capacity was already maxed out so new sources are needed. You also need aluminum for airpcraft manufacture. You need to mass produce aircraft of all sorts by the tens of thousands. You also need the technical manufacturing base to build the millions of things that go into a modern (WW2 standards) aircraft and ship.

This is quite a daunting task, and I just dont see this being done within a reasonable time.


So what is it? Panthers on the Channel and out to the Urals, or T34's on the Channel?
 
syscom3 said:
So what is it? Panthers on the Channel and out to the Urals, or T34's on the Channel?
Click to expand...

Neither, there would be Panthers at the Channel coast because of the success of the invasion of France (they were there anyway). As for the Urals I don't think they would of got that far and there would of been also Panthers in Russia somewhere before Moscow. The T-34's would of been opposing the Panthers outside Moscow (stalemate on the Eastern Front).
 
Gnomey said:
They controlled it for most of 1944 anyway despite the US led invasion....

I see that the Germans would of controlled the majority of Europe up to the point of an Allied invasion which would of occured when everything was ready.
Click to expand...

But without a US led invasion of Europe in 1943 or 1944, then the war between Russia and germany would have been decided by 1945.

And a commonwealth invasion could not have occured untill 1948 or 1949, if at all.
 
What makes you so sure that that would be the case. The Russian advance was helped by the American supplied trucks which they would not have had without the American involvement in the war. The result of this would been that the Russians would have had an over extended supply line with an inablility to effectively supply their troops at the end of an extended supply line. On the otherhand the Germans were beginning to running of men and so they won't of been able to advance anywhere within Russia from their positions in 1943 (from here on in it would be defensive whether the US was involved or not). I don't think the Eastern Front would of been settled by 1944/5 as it was with American involvement (without an invasion the Germans would of been able to have more troops to stall the Russians on the Eastern Front).

Besides this arguement isn't worth it with you because you are so set on the fact that the war would of been over by 1945 without American involvement. America wasn't the saviour of the world as you make out. pD (and pbfoot) have shown the Commonwealth could produce both the manpower and equipment that the US provided (Commonwealth production didn't need to improve to supply the needs as the US was doing it)...
 

Without the threat of an allied invasion in france in 1944, there germans could have deployed enough divisions and airpower in the East to blunt the Russians. So its either a stalemate. Eventually the Russians will get their suplly lines in order and begin the offensive again.

Either way, Russia or Germany wins the war (stalemate is a German victory).


America was the savior because we provided the industrial supremecy to make good on allied loss's.

The commonwelath had minimal industrial and manufacturing capablitity outside of the UK.

Now name me the steel mills and factories in the commonwealth that had the capacity to build trucks and airplanes by the tens of thousands, with the manpower available do it?

Aside from a couple of small ones in Canada, you simply didnt have it.

End of story.
 

Why are we comparing the industrial capacity of the Commonwealth to that of the US? Shouldn't we be comparing it agains't that of Germany? No one in the Commonwealth was able to match it with American industry but with the combined capabilities of the UK, Canada, Australia and others, I believe the combined industrial "might" would have outweighed that of Germany.
From an Australian perspective we only had a small manufacturing industry at the time (our population was only 6.9million) yet we were producing small arms (.303 rifles, owen SMG, stens, vickers etc), munitions of all calibres, Artillery guns, ships, tanks (yes we designed and built our own tanks, not great but the capability was there), radar equipment, and a/c of different types. Our a/c industry was not huge because supplies from America negated this, however the capabitity was there, sure the Wirraway and Boomerang were basic a/c but remember we were producing Beauforts, Beaufighters, Mosquitoes, Mustangs and it was intended to make the Lancaster here but instead B-24's were supplied from the US. Plus we could also provide vast amounts of food for the Commonwealth forces, in the PTO the majority of food supplied to Australian and US forces came from Australia.
The above is by no means a comprehensive list but combine the small industry of Australia with the larger capabilities of Canada and even greater production of the UK, I believe this would have been more than enough to combat that of Germany's.
 
I didn't say that USA had to come in 'all guns blazings' just that they stand up and declare war at the same time as France and the Commonwealth.

Attack Germany ?.... have you any idea how reduced in number the standing UK army/airforce was at that time ?

We wouldn't have lasted 30 days on the offensive with stretched supply lines, it turned out we weren't that bloody good on the defensive either.

All that I'm proposing is that if USA had declared war and stood united with the commonwealth and France that Hilter might very well have backed down without the need of firing any bullets... You don't have to agree with it but it's a thought, that the USA remaining on friendly terms effectivley gave Hilter the 'green light' to do what he wanted in Europe as the USA didn't want to get involved in another European war like the last one.

Simon
 
trackend said:
The US did what they had to do and although from a European prospective it would of been very handy had they got directly involved a bit earlier its understandable.
Click to expand...

What I find odd is the USA attitude to the transportation of cargo across the North Atlantic...

It must have been like 'selling old rope' knowing that 50% of the cargo that's just sailed will not get to it's destination and that tomorrow the man from Britian will come again with a fresh order.
 

Would you accept the words of an American Battle of Britain pilot ?

On past record you wouldn't

Simon

Eagle squadron... don't think they were in the Battle of Britain... a bit too much hollywood
 
bomber said:
I didn't say that USA had to come in 'all guns blazings' just that they stand up and declare war at the same time as France and the Commonwealth.
Click to expand...
And in 1939 there was no reason for it. We did not have the interests in Europe as today, the American people didn't want war and the US was woefully unprepared for war. If anything we would of gone after Japan as there were numerous posturing and innuendo that Japan was ready to strike at the US, Netherlands, and Commonwealth in the Pacific.

bomber said:
Attack Germany ?.... have you any idea how reduced in number the standing UK army/airforce was at that time ?
Click to expand...
Then why the hell did the UK and France declare war???????


bomber said:
We wouldn't have lasted 30 days on the offensive with stretched supply lines, it turned out we weren't that bloody good on the defensive either.
Click to expand...
Your negativity is as astounding as your first comment. This is a "would of, could of" but had Germany been attacked during the initial incursion into Poland, it would of caught Hitler off guard, he could not of held 2 fronts at that time, it's pretty obvious that at least on paper, France and the UIK could of defeated Germany in 1939.
And again you fail to understand what the would was really like at that time. There was no reason for the US to get involved in Europe in 1939 PERIOD! And what do you think, you declare war "Just for the hell of it?" You really think Hitler would of backed down from an enemy 5,000 miles across the sea???? The eventual situation the UK got into was a result of misguided planning and policy and while the UK eventually fought back, blaming the US non participation is a cop out. Accept the fact that the UK and France squandered away time and resources during "sitzkrieg," the same way the US got taken totally by surprise at Pearl Harbor...
 
And how else were supplies going to get over to Europe? It's the 50% that got through that helped keep the UK a float....
 
bomber said:
Would you accept the words of an American Battle of Britain pilot ?

On past record you wouldn't

Simon

Eagle squadron... don't think they were in the Battle of Britain... a bit too much hollywood
Click to expand...

Eugene Quimby "Red" Tobin, Andrew Mamedoff and Vernon "Shorty" Keough, all with 609 Squadron fought in the Battle of Britain and were the first members of 71 Squadron (Eagle) formed after the B of B. 10 Americans fought in the B of B, see for your self...

The Battle of Britain - Home Page
 
bomber said:
I didn't say that USA had to come in 'all guns blazings' just that they stand up and declare war at the same time as France and the Commonwealth.
Click to expand...

And why should the US have done that? It was not the United State's war. Did England stand up and join the US in Vietnam? No because it was not there fight...

Get over it, that is such bullshit that one would say such a thing.
 
Maybe the rest of Europe should have declared war when Germany annexed Austria or marched into the Sudetenland???? Always remember this guy, and the words he spoke. He thought he could subdue Hitler without firing a shot as well!!!

 
bomber said:
Would you accept the words of an American Battle of Britain pilot ?

On past record you wouldn't

Simon

Eagle squadron... don't think they were in the Battle of Britain... a bit too much hollywood
Click to expand...
Nope I am already quite aware of the facts.
I am very curious as to where your facts on 50% losses on convoys came from .I don't think it was that high . Pedastal and a run or two to Murmansk maybe
 
It is simply this. Without the United States economy an Allied victory was not possible. A stalemate maybe but no victory. The same thing happened with Japan as with Germany. When the experienced pilots were killed they were gone, the replacments just couldn't measure up with almost no fuel and very little reserves Germany was doomed. They spread themselves too thin. If they hadn't turned on Russia they may still be in control of Europe. The U.S won the war. Japan and Germany truely did wake a sleeping giant.
 
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