I dont know about the other guys DG, but my coment was very much tongue in cheek. A bit of fun more than anything. For the record, US entry into the war and its performance after that date was critical to the outcome.
But in response to the specific issues you raise, you might 9or might not) want to hear how other nations view the operations you mention.
Could have been - but maybe not if Pearl Harbor doesn't happen and US doesn't enter the war. Mother Russia has to alter its production strategies, the Commonwealth has to fight a two front war without US support, there is only passive support to go after U-Boats in Atlantic, etc etc.
Of course. Minor point, the US contribution to the Battle of the Atlantic was not the committment of naval resources per se. They were significant, but for the most part played a supporting role in parts of the Atalantic other than the Western Aproaches. And it was the Western Approaches where the critical battle was fought. This part of the battle was almost exclusivley undertaken by the British and Commonwealt forces.
What the US did do, was provide the shipbuilding capacity to absorb the massive shipping losses of 1942 and still bounce back in strength. mind you, about 80% of those losses, that came as close as any other event in WWII to losing the war, was the mismanagement of the convoys by the US in the convoy wars. So, even though they ultimately led to an allied victory, in the short term, the US very nearly caused us to lose that war.
Does the Commonwealth stop Japan at Guadalcanal or destroy Japanese naval superiority at Midway? Can Aussies stop Japan from taking Australia or India?
Err actually, yes. Midway was a battle that broke the Japanese offensive sword but it was not a battle that "saved Australia" or anywhere else (except Midway). with or without carriers, by May 1942, the Japanese were reaching the very limits of their shipping capacity and could advance no furtrher. logistics, not battles, were what defeated the japanese ofensive. The destruction of their carrier fleet only served to unstick their offensive capability, but biot their ability to take and hold ground. There was never the slightest hope of the Japanese attacking Australia, whilst they remained stuck in China and facing off the Russians in Manchuria. Same in Burma.
The US efforts in the Pacific for the first two years of the war, in terms of the ground effort and to a lesser extent in the air, were relatively minor. The equivalent of about two divs, and something less than 50% of the air effort. at sea they were critical, but even here it was nearly a year before the USN was able to take to the field of battle on a 1 for 1 basis with the Japanese
Does Great Britain stop U-Boat incursion on time to prevent starvation or defeat Germany forces enough to take control of Med and ensure flow of oil from east Indies and Middle East without US oil to replace sources? Does GB retain control of Suez without US forces to augment advantage over Rommel after El Alemain?
Without US aid, the Allies were stuffed, unquestionably, but the actual fighting in all of those campaigns was done by Commonwealt and British Empire forces. US forces proved rather inneffective until well into 1943. One could argue that anybody with enough time and resources to prepre with, can eventually win battles. How long was it again before the US committed substantial land forces to battle. how long was it before they committed substantial air asets to the battle in Euope. How many fighter squadrons were their deployed in the ETO as at December 1942 for example. The US was so inexperienced, so lacking in combat experience that it can be argued with eaqual force that they were needed for their material resources, that they also needed the Commonwealth forces to nursemaid them whilst they learnt how to fight properly. It cuts both ways. We needed you guys, and you guys needed us, simple as that.
Does Russia get enough trucks and light bombers and fighters to start an offensive in 1942? and how does that change the war in the east when there is no threat from Britain in Italy or an invasion of France? Does GB/Commonwealth ever get control of air in the Med?
In the same way that the russians were needed to make possible operations in the west,, or the british were needed to undertake all manner of operations in the west 9and south) to keep up the pressure on the Germans, whilst the US ever so slowly got their act together. As far as resources are concerned, whilst eventually these resources did make a huge difference, in 1942, such aid was rather limited. in 1941, for example, US aid to Russia, tonnage wise, amopunted to less than 10% of the total shipped in 1942 it was around 50%. But in terms of total tonnages shipped, the amounts in both 1941 and 1942 were quite minor compared to the amounts shiped from 1943 onward.
Maybe December 7 is more important than just to US?
of course. And being the great power that she is, one has to give the US credit for the lions share of the war winning strategy that eventually ran down the Germans. But it is so easy to draw an erroneous conclusion from that....."the US was critical to the eventual victory, therefore their dates in history should be viewed as the most important of the war, at the expense of all others".
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="1px" width="1px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)