Did the US save Europe in WW2?

[plan_D]

Hunter is absolutely right, with a German victory over Europe and Russia - the U.S would have easily been next. For Hunter; what syscom doesn't realise is that the U.S military industry picked up because of their intervention. Without U.S involvement they would not have the numbers or technology that World War II development provided. Meanwhile; Germany would have the numbers, the navy, the air force and technology that made so much a mockery of the American inter-war designs that the U.S may as well give in straight away.

The U.S had the technological ideal but without World War II it would have never been realised.

I'm rushing about this but syscom;

You asked me to mention a factory producing thousands of tanks in Canada - I did. There's no point in you trying to kick up a big fuss and laugh about it, I simply answered your querie. If you want to know more Commonwealth factories, ask for them !



And your "counter" about India and the CBI was flawed since I mentioned that for the industrial discussion, proving that the Commonwealth and Empire had industrial strength beyond Great Britain. The fact that you think the CBI was a military sideshow takes nothing away from the fact that the Commonwealth had industry beyond the U.K.

And all that takes nothing away from the fact that the British Empire (Commonwealth) alone had more people and a larger industrial base than Germany (you know, the enemy) - so there's no need to compare the potential that wasn't realised in the Commonwealth to the potential that was realised in the U.S.

And if you want to rabbit on about how Europe owes the U.S a undying amout of gratitude - maybe you should think read up on your history and starting thanking the British for letting you survive. But I won't get into that, it'll touch a nerve...

Do you know when the declaration of independance was really signed? I'll give you a hint; it's not the 4th of July.

[bomber]

Debt of gratitude... unending ?

I'd like to ask folk this question...

If the USA had stood up in 1939 against oppression and 'perverted sciences', the experimentation on the ill and various peoples. Do we think that Hilter faced with both the British Empire and the USA saying no would have altered his expansion strategy ?

And if rather than using the War in Europe to rebuild it's economy after the depression the USA had 'done the right thing' just how many millions of lives could have been saved by this action ?

Personaly I think it's to the USA's eternal shame that they had to be draged screaming and kicking into the war and all this 'we would have entered eventually...." is just face saving.

An unending debt of gratutde ?... Sys tell that to the 18,000 Londoners that died in the blitz whilst the USA striped any US citzens of their citizenship if they felt so outraged by their countries descision to stay out of it and came over here to fight...

The British people honour the dead of the battle of Britain and number some of them as being from the USA... but not one of them died a US citizen...

Simon

[trackend]

I thought it was around 25000 civis killed in London but nearly every major town in the UK got bombed at some point, some, like Coventry copped it as bad as the East End docks.
During the war political maneuvering was riff and as in peace time each nation carried out policies that they thought best suited their needs normally the US and the UK would never have entertained links with the soviets.
Like wise IMO the US did what was required for them to maintain their way of life as did the UK.
I believe that sometimes it is forgotten that before the days of jet travel the world was a much bigger place and a war in Europe was a long long way from the States so I am not surprised that the US didn't come flying in all guns blazing and it definitely not as you said Bomber to their shame at all. 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.
IMO the US did not save Europe but without them things would have been a lot worse and it was reciprocal without the rest of the worlds forces the US at best would have become a very different place to live and who knows potentially another axis conquest.
Roosevelt may have thought the same he certainly had a inkling after Pearl

[FLYBOYJ]

Debt of gratitude... unending ?

I'd like to ask folk this question...

If the USA had stood up in 1939 against oppression and 'perverted sciences', the experimentation on the ill and various peoples. Do we think that Hilter faced with both the British Empire and the USA saying no would have altered his expansion strategy ?

And if rather than using the War in Europe to rebuild it's economy after the depression the USA had 'done the right thing' just how many millions of lives could have been saved by this action ?

Personaly I think it's to the USA's eternal shame that they had to be draged screaming and kicking into the war and all this 'we would have entered eventually...." is just face saving.

An unending debt of gratutde ?... Sys tell that to the 18,000 Londoners that died in the blitz whilst the USA striped any US citzens of their citizenship if they felt so outraged by their countries descision to stay out of it and came over here to fight...

The British people honour the dead of the battle of Britain and number some of them as being from the USA... but not one of them died a US citizen...

Simon

What a load of BS!!!! Where the hell was the UK and France right after they declared war? Both nations sat on their asses for over a year and let Germany walk into half of Europe. Had the UK and France invaded Germany right from the onset, it would have thrown Hitler off balance, but this is a "would of, could of," But be rest assured, the UK would not have suffered the carnage it did during the B of B had this happened. Blaming the US for not entering the war in 1939 is just as lame as "An unending debt of gratitude," which I agree with you there.

Within 6 months of Pearl Harbor, the US went on the offence and never looked back, and yes without the combined effort of all the allies in the ETO, Germany would not have been defeated. As stated, blaming the US for your Battle of Britain losses is just as lame as the Maginot Line....

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Have to agree with FBJ on this. To blame the US for problems that England had in 1939 to 1941 is bullshit. Until 1941 it was not the US problem or war for them to fight.

Get over it...

[pbfoot]

An unending debt of gratutde ?... Sys tell that to the 18,000 Londoners that died in the blitz whilst the USA striped any US citzens of their citizenship if they felt so outraged by their countries descision to stay out of it and came over here to fight...

Are you sure about the loss of US citizenship they fought and died as US citizens mostly with the RCAF
"On 9 September 39, Canadian defense minister Ian Mackenzie granted Homer Smith a commission as Wing Commander in the RCAF. W/C Smith was now in charge of doing a general survey of American pilots before any official commitments were made. Headquarters became the Waldorf Astoria in New York City, where Clayton Knight joined him. The two men next set out on a tour of major American flying schools. By May 1940, Smith and Knight had a list of over 300 trained American pilots who were eager to come to Canada. At this time the Canadian and British ambassadors in Washington asked what the reaction would be to the recruiting of American pilots. The answer from the "highest quarter" [President Roosevelt] reassured both governments that there would be little difficulty if all were done discreetly. [U.S. nationals would not forfeit citizenship and would have the right to transfer back to American forces should the U.S. become involved in WW II].
92% of the Eagle squadrons came from Canadian recruiting
This might clear up any miscoceptions you have
Clayton Knight Committee

[trackend]

Some how after Bombers post I'm not surprised at the reaction.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Its true however. How can someone blame the US for the Blitz? That is just a bullshit copout.

[FLYBOYJ]

Its true however. How can someone blame the US for the Blitz? That is just a bullshit copout.

10-4!

[syscom3]

This thread is going off on a tangent............

The question is if the US stayed out of the war in Europe for any reason, could the Commonwealth countries invade Europe to join Russia and defeat Hitler.

Time is not unlimited. You cant say that by "1947 or 1948" we will be ready.

By 1944, it will either be a stalemate between Germany and Russia or a German victory.

If Russia keeps on rolling over the Germans, it will be T34's on the English Channel by summer 1945.

Now besides the single large factory in Canada producing tanks, name me the huge steel mills, shipyards and aircraft factories building hundreds of aircraft a month. Australia and S.A didnt have them, and the skilled personell to put them in India and elsewhere didnt exist.

Its still further proof that without the US industrial and manpower contributions, Europe would have been dominated by either Germany or Russia.

[Gnomey]

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).

[pbfoot]

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

[syscom3]

Why is time not unlimited. The Allies were going to fight until the war was over whether it was 1945 or 1948.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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).

So what is it? Panthers on the Channel and out to the Urals, or T34's on the Channel?

[Gnomey]

So what is it? Panthers on the Channel and out to the Urals, or T34's on the Channel?

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).

[syscom3]

So you admit, that either the Germans OR the Russians would have controlled Europe without a US lead invasion in 1944?