Did the US save Europe in WW2?

syscom3 · 05-07-2007, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

And how many years was it going to take to conscript, train and equip those troops? And all the while Germany (assuming Russia loses or just accepts an armistance) isnt sitting still, developing new weapons. And thats assuming that the US would provide a bottomliess pit of money and material for you, which would be problematic given that the US was not directly fighting in the war in Europe.

Plus if it was one thing that was demonstrated in France in 1944, the BA wasnt exactly known for its ability to fight a mobile war, the way the US, Russian and Germans knew how to do. Even an invasion of France without US involvement would have meant the defeat of your army.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 05-07-2007, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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...

I think most people are saying the same thing, it is just being shot passed one another.

I dont agree with syscoms complete assessment but I agree with part of it and I disagree with part of it.

lesofprimus · 05-07-2007, 05:23 PM

So lets shorten it up a bit....

As my last sentence implies, I feel that without US intervention in the ETO of WWII, Mainland Europe, for the most part, remains under German occupation....

Anyone agree or disagree???

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 05-07-2007, 05:25 PM

I dont think so. Russia would have moved west eventually. Russia was just to much for the Germans to chew off in my opinion.

renrich · 05-07-2007, 05:30 PM

Aside from all the other factors youall are mentioning, without the US in the war there is no doubt that Germany would not have been defeated in 1945. By 1946 the Germans would probably have had a nuclear device. The British and Russians would not. Is there any doubt that Hitler would have used it? Who wins then?

Gnomey · 05-07-2007, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

And how many years was it going to take to conscript, train and equip those troops? And all the while Germany (assuming Russia loses or just accepts an armistance) isnt sitting still, developing new weapons. And thats assuming that the US would provide a bottomliess pit of money and material for you, which would be problematic given that the US was not directly fighting in the war in Europe.

Plus if it was one thing that was demonstrated in France in 1944, the BA wasnt exactly known for its ability to fight a mobile war, the way the US, Russian and Germans knew how to do. Even an invasion of France without US involvement would have meant the defeat of your army.

Years but without a US timetable of events that wouldn't matter so much. The British could fight a mobile war if the commanders were right, most of the time the commanders were too cautious and didn't press on without stopping (like Patton). It wasn't that the British couldn't fight a mobile war it was just that the commanders were too cautious to fight one on the scale that Patton was doing it.

Glider · 05-07-2007, 05:40 PM

Had the US stayed out of Europe then I have to agree with those that say that Germany would not have been able to invade the UK and that the UK would not have been able to retake Europe from Germany.

Re Russia I do not believe that Russia would have been able to invade Germany without US aid either. To a large degree the war in Russia is one of logistics and the transport of those logistics to where they are needed. The USA gave Russia the trucks to move the supplies to the front and to a massive degree the material to build and run the railways to get the supplies from the factories to the depots close to the front.

I can see the UK being a larger version of Taiwan facing German held areas instead of China.

bigZ · 05-07-2007, 06:51 PM

A lot has been said about man power required to beat Germany. But didn't Finland manage to hold off Germany and Yugolsalvia make itself independent? So that puts kibosh on all of Europe speaking Russian or German. Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden neutral so I cant see these speaking German immediately.

Am sure without the US the war would have dragged on. But I don't think the 3rd Reich would have been sustainable.

Personally I am fedup of the glamourising of the whole German war effort. So they had sexy planes like the 262 and tanks like the panther. But a Tigers a pile of cr*p against a Typhoon rocket even when it has fuel and is in full working order. They wern't even a fully mechnised army, unlike the British and the US.

Guess the film when comparing the German Army to Napoleons retrea from Moscow?

"The carts.

They're using carts to move
their wounded and the supplies.

The carts came to me in my dream.
I couldn't figure it out.

Then I remembered. . .

. . .that nightmare in the snow.
The agonizing retreat from Moscow.

How cold it was.

They threw the wounded and what was
left of the supplies in the carts.

Napoleon was finished."

mkloby · 05-07-2007, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigZ

A lot has been said about man power required to beat Germany. But didn't Finland manage to hold off Germany and Yugolsalvia make itself independent?

I'm not sure what you mean by that one...

Soundbreaker Welch? · 05-07-2007, 06:58 PM

I am kinda wondering: If the USA had stayed out of the war, (maybe with Japan) and the Russians decided to invade Britain in say 1945-1946, would they have had more success than the Germans?

If Russia had tried to attack in a "Battle of Britain" style in 1940 instead of the Germans, would they have had any luck? Again, no US military to help.

I guess it's hard to say. I would be leaning towards the language being Russian today, instead of German. But of course, that may just hold for mainland Europe, not Britain.

bigZ · 05-07-2007, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkloby

I'm not sure what you mean by that one...

I meant with only 500,000 soldiers throughout WWII Finland held off Germany plus Germany. Yugoslavia gained independence with a partisan force without using significant manpower from the US, Russia or GB. Just trying to put some reasonable doubt inro the argument that without US manpower Germany could not possibly be beaten.

Glider · 05-07-2007, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soundbreaker Welch?

I am kinda wondering: If the USA had stayed out of the war, (maybe with Japan) and the Russians decided to invade Britain in say 1945-1946, would they have had more success than the Germans?

If Russia had tried to attack in a "Battle of Britain" style in 1940 instead of the Germans, would they have had any luck? Again, no US military to help.

I guess it's hard to say. I would be leaning towards the language being Russian today, instead of German. But of course, that may just hold for mainland Europe, not Britain.

In 1939/40 Germany and Britian had the most advanced airforces and supporting technologies e.g. Radar, by far. Had Russia attacked Britian they would have been totally outclassed, as they would have been had they tried attacking Germany.
Also the Germany Navy was very small but professional and well equipped, the Russian navy was way behind and wouldn't have posed a threat.

timshatz · 05-07-2007, 08:21 PM

Sounds like, long and short, none of the parties involved had the power to put a knockout punch on the others. Without the US intervetion, the war in Europe drags on. Britian has no continetal force, Russians and Germans go at it hammer and tongs until....what?

The thread has morphed from "Did the US save Europe?" to "What does the European War look like without American involvement?". That is a far more interesting question.

No Lend Lease, everybody fights with what they have.

I think we'd have to think along the lines of:

"Who has the best industrial base",
"Who has the largest manpower pool to draw from?",
"Who is going to adapt fast enough to take advantage of what they have?"

In truth, this is a hell of a difficult question. US involvement transformed the war in Europe. Taking it away, especially Lend Lease, makes what we know as history unrecognizable.

In truth, I really don't know where to start. Uboat War? Eastern Front? Africa? Night Bomber Offensive?

Cyrano · 05-07-2007, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigZ

I meant with only 500,000 soldiers throughout WWII Finland held off Germany plus Germany.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but Finland was allied with Germany. There were German divisions in Finland. After peacemaking in 1944 Russians demanded that we start a war against German troops which were retreating to Norway. So war between Finland and Germany was a mere skirmish. Finns were very reluctant to fight former brothers in arms.

bigZ · 05-07-2007, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyrano

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but Finland was allied with Germany. There were German divisions in Finland. After peacemaking in 1944 Russians demanded that we start a war against German troops which were retreating to Norway. So war between Finland and Germany was a mere skirmish. Finns were very reluctant to fight former brothers in arms.

Sorry meant to say Russia.