Did the US save Europe in WW2?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Without the US, Europe would have remained under German control. And if it was the Russians who ultimatly beat the Germans, then it was going to be
T-34 tanks on the Channel, and not the BA in Berlin.

The US entry into the war in Europe guarenteed that the allies would win. Therefore America gets credit for saving the butt's of the European people.

That is the thing that you fail to realize. Not one single force could win the war by themselves. Without the Eastern Front the Germans would have been to powerful in the west. Without the Western Front, vice versa.

You let pride along with your arguement with pD cloud your judgement.

Now after WW2, in the Cold War yes the US kept the rest of Europe from being under Soviet Control, that is true because there was no other military power other than the US that could stand up by itself against the Soviet, however if WW3 had broken out, it would have been a combined effort again.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by syscom3

If the US did not enter into the war in Europe, these things we can be sure of:

3) Without extensive aid to the Russians, the Red Army could have collapsed at several times in 1942 and 1943.

I highly doubt that. The war would have lasted longer of course, but the russians had a lot of land to retreat to. They would simply hold on until the German Army had eneventibly exhausted themselves in the cold russian winter.

7) Its no exaggeration to say the German army was generally superior in nearly all catagories to the BA in weapons, tactics and leadership.

Hmm, I still think the Germans eventually lost because lack of leadership and understanding of tactics in longterm warfare.

End result:
Without the US in the war, Germany would have won or the Russians ultimatly would have prevailed. With the US in the war, Allied victory was guarenteed.

The Russians were allied too at that moment
But serious, of course we (europeans) should be very thankfull for what the US did for us. But they were not alone. I think all forces, UK, UA, USSR, Canada etc. were nescessary, not the USA alone, so to say the USA saved Europa alone is a little too much credit, I think.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The events of the Pacific are inapplicable here.

No they are not. The PTO took up allied assets as well.

You can not pick and choose history to suit your personal agenda...

Nice try, but forget it.

Looks like your attempt at getting ay pD through this thread is backfiring in your face.

[Gnomey]

The UK alone did not have the resources true but if you factor in the Empire there was a lot of manpower available there that wasn't used to its full potential. There were possibilities to recruit millions in India and Africa to help bolster the fighting forces of Britain. There could of been enough to cover the lack of American troops. The problem would really be equipment and if lend-lease had continued there wouldn't of been a problem there either so in theory the British could of made an attempt on the continent without the help of the American army. Besides if Hitler after the defeat of France and the failure in the Battle of Britian withdrew most of his troops to Russia and the British caught the Germans by surprise with a landing as Hitler had underestimated the British then it would just be a case of the same as after D-day but without the Americans. If the British had utilised the manpower of the colonies - introduced conscription - they could of had more men than they had which could of made up for the lack of American personell (they still would of been their as observers though). In balance the British Empire could of invaded Europe without American manpower but not without American equipment. Besides the way it happened the Americans were part of a team and didn't 'win' the war in Europe singlehandedly without they it could of still happened - would of taken longer perhaps but it still would of happened. The Americans were needed more for their manufacturing capacity than for their manpower although the manpower was an added boost for the beleaguered British troops (despite the Empire) but the equipment supplied by the Americans was more of a boost than the manpower if Britain had been able to source more men from the Empire.

[amrit]

Firstly, let's distinguish between material and manpower.

Britain did indeed buy a lot of weapons, equipment and supplies from the States before they entered the war. And they would have continued to do so - as long as the US was willing to sell them to Britain. The constraints were not with the British Empire's buying power but with the unwillingness of the US to sell - only overcome by legislation change in the US.

The long range aircraft you mention - by which I presume you mainly mean the Mustang, was a colloborative effort. Without a British engine, the aircraft would have been useless as a long range aircraft. The question is - would the US have sold the aircraft and allowed the RAF to use it?

As to manpower - yes, Britain certainly played a part but the weren't a decisive factor. Even though it is often considered that Britain had a manpower shortage this isn't completely correct. What they had was a shortage of trained soldiers that could be deployed along the US timetable. India had hardly been tapped, and political pressure on other Empire countries would certainly have elicited a greater response.

However, as far as I am concerned, the US played a very important role in Europe - but it was neither decisive nor did they "save" Europe. I would never deny their contribution, but neither would I over-estimate it.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by amrit

However, as far as I am concerned, the US played a very important role in Europe - but it was neither decisive nor did they "save" Europe. I would never deny their contribution, but neither would I over-estimate it.

Very well said.

[pbfoot]

Canada Australia New Zealand and South Africa were not part of the British Empire the Commonwealth yes Empire no

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Once again I'll ask is lend lease in play or United States totally neutral towards Britian and her Allies

Lend Lease is in play, with whatever is left over from the PTO going to the UK (which includes the commonwealth).

But the UK still has man power constraints which limits its ultimate fighting potential.

No matter how much material aid gets to the UK, you still dont have the man power to defeat Germany. Remember too, the RN needs lots of manpower to keep the sea lanes open (defensive operations, not directly threatening German industrial or military capacity), which isnt personell going to the RAF or BA (which are offensive compnants).

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

That is the thing that you fail to realize. Not one single force could win the war by themselves. Without the Eastern Front the Germans would have been to powerful in the west. Without the Western Front, vice versa.

Read my posts again. It plainly says that the UK needed the US to win, but without the US, it wa simpossible. I also plainly stated that the Russians could have won the war by themselves, and Europe would be speaking Russian not German.

You let pride along with your arguement with pD cloud your judgement.

Quote me where I said the US single handidly won the war in Europe. I mearly said that without the US involvement, the UK wouldnt win. And without the US threat in 1943, then its possible the Germans could have beaten the Russians.

Now after WW2, in the Cold War yes the US kept the rest of Europe from being under Soviet Control, that is true because there was no other military power other than the US that could stand up by itself against the Soviet, however if WW3 had broken out, it would have been a combined effort again.

This is about 1942. If the US stayed out of the fight, then the cold war would not have occured. All of Europe would either be under the domination of germany, or Stalinist Russia in which the US wouldnt have cared.

[amrit]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Canada Australia New Zealand and South Africa were not part of the British Empire the Commonwealth yes Empire no

Normally PB I would agree with you but in this instance I did mean the Empire countries (i.e. not the one's listed by you) - I should have been clearer. I'll expand on my meaning - most of the African nations within the Empire contributed some black troops, but there was real resistence from the local colonial adminstrators for further recruitment, especially for armed troops (as opposed to service corps). This was also reflected in South Africa, where blacks were only allowed to join non-combatant units. When blacks were allowed to act as combatants, as in Burma, they did very well.

There were also issues over recruiting in the Middle East. And in India, the pre-war system of only recruiting from the "martial" races meant that many volunteers were turned away, especially in the early years of the war.

With a tighter grip on the Foreign Office, Whitehall could have ended some of these discriminations, and hence increase the British army's manpower.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

No they are not. The PTO took up allied assets as well.

You can not pick and choose history to suit your personal agenda...

Nice try, but forget it.

Looks like your attempt at getting ay pD through this thread is backfiring in your face.

Youre right, the US would have used more of its assetts and materials in fighting the Japanese and not provided as much material aid to the Brits. Maybe even shift more of the destroyers in the Atlantic fleet to the Pacific and make the U-Boat war harder on the Brits?

And you cant get a grasp on what I am saying........

"The allies needed the US to win. The allies couldnt have won without the US. And only Russia had the capability to defeat Germany" (thus Russian spoken in Europe).

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

And you cant get a grasp on what I am saying........

No I understnad fully where you are going with this. I have read eneogh of your posts on this forum and know how this thread started.

Originally Posted by syscom3

"The allies needed the US to win. The allies couldnt have won without the US. And only Russia had the capability to defeat Germany" (thus Russian spoken in Europe).

And the US could not have done it without the allies either....

[syscom3]

But serious, of course we (europeans) should be very thankfull for what the US did for us. But they were not alone. I think all forces, UK, UA, USSR, Canada etc. were nescessary, not the USA alone, so to say the USA saved Europa alone is a little too much credit, I think.

Explain to me how the Brits (and commonwealth) were going to have the resources in which to fight the Germans and win? Germany was not a maritime power, thus the RN could contril the sea lanes, but not strike the heart of German industrial power. The RAF didnt have the resources by itself to fight a 24/7/365 bombing campaign, let alone provide enough tactical aircraft to support an invasion. The BA? Sorry, but in every catagory, the German army was superior.

Without US involvement in the war, you have two possible choices....

Germans win and Europe speaks German.
Russians win and Europe speaks Russian.

Now, with the US in the war, we provided enough materials and manpower to enable the allies to win. Therefore the US did indeed ensure the defeat of Germany. We were literally the big boys coming into the war to ensure victory.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No one is disputing the industrial capacity that the US provided.

I agree with you that the allies could not have done it without the US but I am a firm believe the US could not have done it alone either. That is my arguement here.

If you really want to be technical. Germany sealed her fate when she invaded to the East.

[lesofprimus]

Tough discussion.... Thing is, I have problems including Great Britain with Europe.... I think of it in terms of mainland Europe and the British Isles....

That being said, I feel that without US intervention, most if not all of mainland Europe would be speaking German, but I feel that the British would still be of their own accord.... I feel that the Germans could have beaten the Russians without the US getting into it, and could have also held onto France, Italy, Netherlands etc etc at the same time....

I dont think that the Germans could have effectively gotten across the Channel for the "Sealion" invasion....

I do feel that everyone is trying to jump on syscoms back on this... He has many valid points, but I will reiterate one thing.... He is not saying that the US did it all on their own... He knows thats not true....

Without US help, Germany most likely goes undefeated in this one...