Did the US save Europe in WW2?

[RATHED]

Well , just my two cents on this subject.

Trying to make it short, it was American industrial capacity and Russian manpower that defeated Germany.

Let´s create a scenario: First : Japan never attacks Pearl Harbor . (I know some people said already that Pacific Teather has not to do with this discussion, but I strongly disagree.) With that, Germany never declares war on US, and the US never enters “open” war ( They were in fact already involved, which heavy deliveries of war material trough Lend Lease).

Without the complete air and sea supremacy that was only granted by the involvement of America, the British would still have holded preatty well, but any invasion of Fortress Europa was completely doomed. (Ever heard of Dieppe? ) Sure, the Brits would probably win in Afrika, but that would be a ‘side” theater of operations, and I don´t believe they would even manage to get to Silicy ( Actually, I feel it is more probable that the Germans would capture Malta). Remember that without the war turning so bad to Italy as it did in real life, Mussolini would probably retain power. Italy would still be fighting the Brits much longer than it did in real life. It has been stated here that the Brits were already in the offensive when 42 started. Truth, but I don´t believe that this would be a big, decisive and winning offensive without US involvement. For example the air offensive was mild and almost tatic in nature and did not really had a strategic effect like from 43 on.

The continent would be strongly in German hands, and the outcome of the conflict would be dependent on the results of the battles in Russia. It is impossible to predict exactly, but I don´t thing that the Soviet Union alone would managed to defeat the germans all the way to Berlin. Most likely, the war would drag on with heavy losses on both sides.

Consider that many factors that helped the Soviets would be absent, or would loose force: 1 – The enormous amount of war material delivered by US and England would be, at least, considerably small than it was. Some said that they would remain the same , trough Lend Lease. I disagree. With allowed American arming itself AND delivering weapon to the soviets at the same time was the fact that America was in a state of war. Without that, the economy would have other priorities also, and the ammount of material shipped to the soviets would inevitabily be smaller. As it has also been pointed , all the transport convoys would be be british, further complicating thinks… 2 – Without the threat of immediate invasion many german troops on occupation duty not only in France but also in Norway and the Balkans could had been used. 3 – The heavy effort to fight allied aerial bombing, demanding the use not only of thousands of fighters , but also thousand of AAA guns and crews would be sigficant smaller, again freeing german resources to the east front. Plus, the damage made would also be smaller, and Nazi industrial production would benefit.

It is open to discussion, but my bet is that the germans would at some point occupy both Moscou and/or the Caucasus ( with Stalingrad) but Russian defenses would not crumble and you would have a draw.

Not to mention that whit Japan not involved in fighting US, they are still a credible force against the eastern Russian flank, further complicating soviet ability to move resources.

By 1947 we would be in the middle of hard sea and air battles in West Europe, but most of the focus would be on the ground in the east front. At some point in time the germans would get nukes and there is a good probability they would use them against Soviet Union…

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by RATHED

Well , just my two cents on this subject.

Trying to make it short, it was American industrial capacity and Russian manpower that defeated Germany.

…

Thats a good way of putting it.

Take out the US industrial output, then Germany has a better than 50-50 chance of winning.

[plan_D]

The CBI theatre would be an exact replica of the real events; which relieves troops in 1945 as the war with Germany would still be ongoing.

Canada provided thousands of aircraft, tanks and trucks to the Allied war effort - their industry was not huge, but more than capable of expansion. And India, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa all provided resources, men and machine to the war effort.
The British Empire had more men than the U.S - that's a simple fact. So, man power was not to be a problem. You're thinking of what did happen, rather than what could have happened. The U.S provided all these men and material - so Britain didn't have to; it doesn't mean Britain didn't have the people at its disposal.
On top of that, the Soviet Union would still be pressurising the German forces in the East. And the RAF was in a good position for offensives during 1943 - and I say again, we bombed by day and night.

The fact is; a Soviet and British alliance had more industrial capacity than Germany and had more men. In the war of attrition - they'd lose and that's what it became.

Germany weren't that far advanced; 1945 - Britain had the Centurion; equal to any German AFV. We had fighters equal to any of the Luftwaffe; tactical bombers that were superior; and strategic bombers that were far superior. Our electronics were always one step ahead. Germany was never going to have a massive technical advantage.

The RAF if needed to, would have eventually been sending escorted heavy raids by day to Germany - but we didn't need to, 'cos America was doing it.

[Emac44]

Originally Posted by plan_D

The CBI theatre would be an exact replica of the real events; which relieves troops in 1945 as the war with Germany would still be ongoing.

Canada provided thousands of aircraft, tanks and trucks to the Allied war effort - their industry was not huge, but more than capable of expansion. And India, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa all provided resources, men and machine to the war effort.
The British Empire had more men than the U.S - that's a simple fact. So, man power was not to be a problem. You're thinking of what did happen, rather than what could have happened. The U.S provided all these men and material - so Britain didn't have to; it doesn't mean Britain didn't have the people at its disposal.
On top of that, the Soviet Union would still be pressurising the German forces in the East. And the RAF was in a good position for offensives during 1943 - and I say again, we bombed by day and night.

The fact is; a Soviet and British alliance had more industrial capacity than Germany and had more men. In the war of attrition - they'd lose and that's what it became.

Germany weren't that far advanced; 1945 - Britain had the Centurion; equal to any German AFV. We had fighters equal to any of the Luftwaffe; tactical bombers that were superior; and strategic bombers that were far superior. Our electronics were always one step ahead. Germany was never going to have a massive technical advantage.

The RAF if needed to, would have eventually been sending escorted heavy raids by day to Germany - but we didn't need to, 'cos America was doing it.

And also Plan the fact that the English including Scots Irish and Welsh had already cracked the Enigma Codes of the German Army Navy and Luftwaffe and its civilian radio traffic as well. England had an advantage of knowing where Germany would deploy its forces. And this information would have been passed onto the USSR instead of the USA. Also the use of Radar would have been given to the USSR instead of the USA for its Naval Fleets.

And what I find amazing is some consider that the RAF Bomber Command made no significant contribution to the defeat of Germany during WW2. One forum chatter even suggested that Germany's overall production increased in 1944. See the year 1944 and he singled out the RAF as being non productive. If I remember correctly the USAAF 8th AirForce was conducting daylight raids into Germany at this time and their contribution would have be ineffective going by the increase of German War Production. These people think the Norden Bomb sight was the bloody bee knees in targetting during WW2. It bloody well wasn't and was more ineffective during daylight mission then what the RAF was using at night. It appears some have forgotten the advent of the Path Finder Squadrons from Bomber Command and were used effectively during WW2 at night. We might take this opportunity to remind our US cousins of the severe losses incured by the USAAF 8th Air Force on their bomber crews prior to the introduction of Long Range Fighter Escorts Mustangs and these losses still occured to USAAF Bomber Crews despite the fighter escorts etc. And without the British Merlin Engine the Mustang would have been nothing more than a low level fighter bomber and as such the Americans would have continued with heavy losses. It wasn't the RAF who had problems supplying Bomber Crews and Aircraft and transporting the same across the Atlantic during WW2 and production levels as aircraft like the Lancaster Short Sterling and Halifax were being produced locally mostly in England and that Bomber Crews were volunteering from all over the Commonwealth and Great Britian.

As for countries like Australia Sys the production of raw materials increased during WW2 to supply the Nation and the Commonwealth in the War Effort. You obviously think the USA was the only industrialized nation in the world and your comments about the Commonwealth being maxed out are bizzare if not a little insulting. Production of steel iron ore coal food material for war increased in this country 3 years before the USA ever set foot in WW2 And same as did what occured in Canada South Africa and Rhodesia Also the production of oil rubber tin and other valuable resources increased. Sys you obviously think the British Empire was helpless and hapless without the USA prior to WW2 and during the early stages of WW2.

I think this thread has gone from recriminations about the contributions of Great Britian and her Commonwealth and is turning into the same old bullshit with a different label once more. No one wins wars without the USA involved the usual crap that insults other nations again.

You want to know who defeated the Germans. Well it was the USSR who defeated the Germans during WW2 with of course the help she received from all Allied Nations. No way would Germany had prevailed against Russia. They the Germans made the same mistake at the gates of Moscow as Napoleon did in the war of 1812. And it was the USSR who pushed the Germans all the way back to Berlin and took Berlin without the assistence of the US or Great Britian or the rest of the Allied Nations. And it was not until June 6th 1944 D Day that the 2nd front Stalin had been asking for actually took place. It is my belief even if D Day had not occured it would have made no difference to the USSR and same result would have occured with or without the USA being involved in WW2.

And it appears our US cousins still think the German Army was all armed on the Eastern Front with up to date mechanized armour and regiments and supply was all mechanized. Simple cases show the the Vaunted Tiger and Panther Tanks being used by the Germans in some cases were ineffective and were prone to mechanical failure and that the Germans had failed to recognise the Feared Russian Winter that froze engine lubricants in the crank case of engines. And also the Allies to the Germans like Romainians Italians etc were under armed and were undisciplined on the flanks of the vaunted German Army. And in more than one case horse and cart transport was still being used by the German Army for supply of its troops on the Eastern Front. Quiet frankly I dispair with these blatant over sights about the German Military in Russia. By members in this forum and from what one hears from others who belittle the USSRs efforts in WW2 and belittle the efforts of the UK and her Commonwealth.

And before you claim Sys that Japan would have interferred with the Commonwealth Nations in the Asia Pacific Regions. Well in accordance with this thread there would have been no Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbour or Philippines Malaya or Singapore or Dutch East Indies as neither Japan or US would have been involved in the War. It wasn't until December 7th 1941 that Japan came involved and consquently the US and Germany and Italy declaring war on US one to 2 days later.

And I believe Sys is over estimating that Germany had a better than 50 50 chance of winning WW2 without the US being in WW2. I wouldn't even give them a rating of that high as their own productions were dismal and that they rushed into production weapons that had not even been trialled in near combat conditions. As for example Tiger Panther and the Elephant Assault Tanks proved at times to be ineffective in Russian Territory and the bloody things broke down on more then on a few occassions. As for their Air Force they couldn't even supply their men trapped in Stalingrad and sustain those troops of Paulus 6th Army. Their aircraft fighters most capable were also limited to range and their heaviest bombers in use were limited not only by range bombing carrying but also engines as they were restricted to 2 engines in most cases. Their Stuka dive bombers were easy targets to any fighter British or Russian.

And it was the British who developed specialized attacks on Germany during WW2 using her 4 engined heavy bombers and again it was the British who developed anti submarine warfare to a higher degree with her Royal Navy Fleets in the Atlantic And anti submarine long ranged aircraft using another British invention called RADAR which equiped RAF Coastal Command AirCraft Squadrons and something the British would not have shared with the US but would have shared with the USSR instead. Another of those things would have been any advancement of Nuclear Power or Jet Air Craft technology and such simple things later as Jet Air Craft Ejection Seats for aeroplanes would not have been shared with the USA either Plan. Just some of the little things Plan that Sys ignores or belittles about the British ability to wage a proper war against Germany

[RATHED]

Hi Emac and PlanD. Not that I don´t agree with some of the things you said, but I will repeat to you the claim PlanD made: I believe you are “thinking of what did happen, rather than what could have happened.” .

You are completing forgeting the cumulative effect the pressure of so many enemies had on Germany. Take out the US out of equation and they would have done better, while England would be under more pressure than it was in “our” world, and would have done worse. That extends to weapons development. For example, the Tiger “might’ ( and that is all we can say, since we are speculating here) been developed in a better way. The british bomber force would not be so strong or competent, since the LW would have a bigger offensive strength and UK would have to give a bigger priority to fighter and defensive measures than it did. And so on, and so on... The point to emphasize here is the cumulative effect. I could point literally THOUSANDS of small thing the allies had going for them that would be absent if it was not for American involvement.

That all said, let me make clear that UK would still be very important, and yeah , they would probably even be more advanced in technology. But they would NOT have a major ground front to fight in, at least not until Russia had seriously depleted Nazi capability. That is because amphibious landings, be in Norway, the Balkans, Italy or France, would be impossible and doomed if it was not for the complete air and sea superiority. And the UK would not have obtained that for many years, if it was not for American involvement. And without a serious possibility of having a two front GROUND war, Germany would manage its resources better.

In a sea and air war the Brits would cause a lot of damage to Germany. But even if it was important, it would never be enough to win the war by itself. Bottom line, you also need the boots on the ground to close the deal.

Would the German outright win? Of course not! Did America “saved” the UK? Of course not! What I believe is that the Nazis would manage to retain control in western Europa despite british efforts to the contrary, and the war would drag and be decided in the east. It is impossible to say what would be the exact outcome, maybe even an cease-fire or a decades long conflict… By the way, consider that I am NOT American.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by plan_D

The CBI theatre would be an exact replica of the real events; which relieves troops in 1945 as the war with Germany would still be ongoing.

Agrre'd. But by the time they can go to Europe, the war has been decided for Russia or Germany.

Canada provided thousands of aircraft, tanks and trucks to the Allied war effort - their industry was not huge, but more than capable of expansion. And India, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa all provided resources, men and machine to the war effort.

You need 100's of thousands of trucks, 10's of thousands of aircraft and thousands of ships. Australia, SA and Canada didnt have the resources to do it. Plus much of the production from Australia would be going to support its own forces in the Pacific.

The British Empire had more men than the U.S - that's a simple fact. So, man power was not to be a problem. You're thinking of what did happen, rather than what could have happened. The U.S provided all these men and material - so Britain didn't have to; it doesn't mean Britain didn't have the people at its disposal.

Incorrect. You are counting the vast hordes of colonial people who were illiterate and could not be expected to perform to the high standards needed to defeat Germany.

On top of that, the Soviet Union would still be pressurising the German forces in the East. And the RAF was in a good position for offensives during 1943 - and I say again, we bombed by day and night.

And without the US and thus the Brits to worry about, more men and material can be moved to the eastern front.

The fact is; a Soviet and British alliance had more industrial capacity than Germany and had more men. In the war of attrition - they'd lose and that's what it became.

Britain alone didnt have the industrial might to defeat Germany. Russia had lots of industrial power, but squandered lots of it because of the conditions it had to fight in.

Germany weren't that far advanced; 1945 - Britain had the Centurion; equal to any German AFV. We had fighters equal to any of the Luftwaffe; tactical bombers that were superior; and strategic bombers that were far superior. Our electronics were always one step ahead. Germany was never going to have a massive technical advantage.

Germany's tanks and AFV's were superior right unto the last few months of the war (63 out of 68 months is quite impressive). And if the US hadnt enabled the Brits to invade Normandy in 1944, none of your centurion tanks would see combat in numbers.

Fighters equal to the LW? yes, but you need magnitudes better than, or in numbers far in excess of the LW to destroy it.

The RAF if needed to, would have eventually been sending escorted heavy raids by day to Germany - but we didn't need to, 'cos America was doing it.

Only one problem with that, you dont have the resources to do it by day AND night. Forget that the US had 2500 heavy bombers, and another 4000 tactical bombers and fighters to provide for the fight? I dont think the brits had the resources to expand beyond what you already had.

The facts are clear. Britain had to raise an army and navy large enough to defeat Germany by middle 1945. You simpky didnt have the mapower, resources and time needed to do it.

By early 1945, we can be sure of one of the following:
1) Germany and Russia had fought themsleves to a draw. Germany is still firmly in place in Europe.
2) Germany beats Russia in 1943, and again, Germany not only controls Europe, but is in a position to threaten the middle east.
3) Russia beats germany and controls Europe.

[RATHED]

Well , I n my opinion, in creating this scenario we can´t even consider the possibility of Japan attacking Pearl Harbor and the US fighting only in the Pacific. It is not credible at all. Either they stay out of the war or they would fight it in both theaters. FDR wanted to get in to the war anyway, Pearl Harbor was just what finally decided it. Yeah, I know the germans declared war first , but that is just a tecnacality

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Incorrect. You are counting the vast hordes of colonial people who were illiterate and could not be expected to perform to the high standards needed to defeat Germany.

That is a bit far fetched I think. You dont have to be smart to follow orders and have a fighting spirit.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by RATHED

Well , I n my opinion, in creating this scenario we can´t even consider the possibility of Japan attacking Pearl Harbor and the US fighting only in the Pacific. It is not credible at all. Either they stay out of the war or they would fight it in both theaters. FDR wanted to get in to the war anyway, Pearl Harbor was just what finally decided it. Yeah, I know the germans declared war first , but that is just a tecnacality

There was almost a week difference between declaring the war. And untill Germany declared war, there was less than unanomous support for declaring war on Germany.

And Japan was going to declare war on the US regardless of what germany was going to do.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

That is a bit far fetched I think. You dont have to be smart to follow orders and have a fighting spirit.

You need literate people to maintain the machines, and fly the planes. And unless you just want to use the bodies as cannon fodder, then having them smart enough to be able to fight with some probability of defeating the GA is a distinct advantage.

[RATHED]

Something that people are forgeting: Well , we all agree that the most important ground front would be on Russia. Let´s say the soviets are finally wining, and begin to pushing back the germans. We still don´t have a ground front in France, nor the possibility of one in the short term. Anyone really believe the Brits would keep supporting the soviets when they started pouring in to Europa?

I know that Churchill said he would make partners even with the Devil against Hitller, but this is BS. In real life it would come down to “Real Politikcs”. The Brits ( and the US, even if it was out of the war) did not wanted a nazified continental Europa, but they did not wanted a communist one either.

Most likely, the support would be reduced as soon as it becomes clear that western Europa is whitin the grasp of Stalin. The political and strategic aim for the Brits would be to keep the Russians strong enough to keep Germany occupied and depleted, but not enough to defeat it completely, in the hope the England would at some point grow strong enough or would get the support of the US to “liberate” western Europe.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

You need literate people to maintain the machines, and fly the planes. And unless you just want to use the bodies as cannon fodder, then having them smart enough to be able to fight with some probability of defeating the GA is a distinct advantage.

You obviously have not served in the military then...

[RATHED]

Originally Posted by syscom3

There was almost a week difference between declaring the war. And untill Germany declared war, there was less than unanomous support for declaring war on Germany.

And Japan was going to declare war on the US regardless of what germany was going to do.

This a whole other discussion, I don´t wanna get in to now. We will just disagree on that. In my scenario, I will always consider that Pearl Harbor never happened.

[rogthedodge]

In short yes, but the US couldn't have won it without the UK, the UK couldn't have won it without the Empire or the Poles etc etc.

Most Brits I know wouldn't dispute the US's help was decisive, it's the post-war usuary terms of economic help and the more-recent crowing that tends to inflame opinions

[Emac44]

I like that Sys considers vast amounts of people in the Commonwealth were iliterate. By any standard this is a high over stating his ignorance of the British Empire. Who educated most Dominion Indigenous Populations far more than any Colonial or Empire Powers had done before. And how long have you thought Australians New Zealanders Canadians South Africans Malays Singaporeans etc are dumb as dog **** Sys? And according to your thread the US wasn't in the War WHICH MEANS NEITHER WAS JAPAN THAT BROUGHT THE USA INTO THE WAR WHEN IT ATTACKED PEARK HARBOUR AND PHILIPPINES. And as soon as Japan had attacked the USA and her overseas possessions less that in a 48 hours Germany and Italy declared war on the US. You are concentrating on this being a European War. Which it wasn't after December 1941 when it became Global. And with Japan not part of this scenerio your opinions of the Commonwealth supplying Great Britian is based on that Japan was in WW2 after December 1941. Which wouldn't have been the case as Japan would not have been involved as according to you US was NOT INVOLVED AND HENCE NEITHER WAS JAPAN


And Sys who are you to consider PEOPLE OF THE EMPIRE WERE AS DUMB AS DOG ****. When the British set about educating the natives of the EMPIRE NATIONS unlike the France Belguim and Holland at the same time.

I am sorry but I am taking exception to these overtures of people who were natives in the Commonwealth and the British Empire from Sys. it has gone to sheer arrogance in my opinion