Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually if the US had gone to war in June 1940 it would have just meant they would have started building up their army , navy and air force a year and a half sooner.
I will say every show I see about Dunkirk says the British lost alot of equipment that they left in France. Thats all I can say about it as I really dont know just how much they lost only that all the shows I have seen seem to agree it was alot. Ron
You should read and understand what I wrote. The British could raise 45 million men. It was equipping them that was the problems. The Australians were not in Australia quivering. They were actually used in the desert and Crete. Why would they wait at home for the Japanese who had not declared war!
You really need to forget about the 45 million troops that could have never been raised. Dont you think they would have tried to mobilize some if they actually had them in the empire. They did not even have 10 million that could have been mobilized in the war. Ron
Actually if the US had gone to war in June 1940 it would have just meant they would have started building up their army , navy and air force a year and a half sooner.
I will say every show I see about Dunkirk says the British lost alot of equipment that they left in France. Thats all I can say about it as I really dont know just how much they lost only that all the shows I have seen seem to agree it was alot. Ron
The British did lose a lot of equipment for sure. Not all of it as 2nd rate TV docs put across and much valuable stuff was taken back. Repatriation started very quickly, as soon as the French collapsed at the front. Much of the equipment was of WW1 design. The new equipment was of the latest designs. British industry was of the same size as Germany. Most of the British army and its equipment never went to France. The RAF did not use the Spitfire until the Dunkirk pocket was formed and then defeated the Germans in the air over Dunkirk. By Dec 1940, the British had a quarter of a million equipped men in North Africa and the Middle East.
You are right, US industry would have gone up a few gears if they were in the war in May 1940. It was not until late 1941/early 1942 US industry matched the UK and Germany's output. The UK was also supplying the USSR before the US came in.
The USA coming into the war in May 1940 would not have meant an immediate full on shooting war with Germany. There was no conditions for one. It would have meant securing the southern Med coast and getting rid of Vichy territory and the Vichy navy (which Churchill did do). I doubt the Italians would have entered the war, so hey would be neutralized in North Africa. The US army (not air force or navy) initially could be under the wing of the UK until up to gear. The egos of US generals and admirals (a problem in WW2) may have got in the way or have been dented.
The prime point of the USA entering the war in May 1940 was that Germany would have to face another army, air force and navy. Many historians say what brought the Germans to the peace table in 1918 was the prospect of facing another army - the US army. The US army's contribution up until the peace talks was miniscule overall, and it was ineffective with the troops and generals being green. But they knew another massive army was on its way and would get hardened up in time.
Would have the USSR change sides and formed an alliance with the UK and US? All what if but possibilities.
You should read and understand what I wrote. The British could raise 45 million men. It was equipping them that was the problem. The Australians were not in Australia quivering. They were actually used in the desert and Crete. Why would they wait at home for the Japanese who had not declared war!
You really need to forget about the 45 million troops that could have never been raised. Dont you think they would have tried to mobilize some if they actually had them in the empire. They did not even have 10 million that could have been mobilized in the war. Ron
You should really understand something so simple. Again...The British could raise 45 million men. It was equipping them that was the problem.
You must stop making things up like .."They did not even have 10 million that could have been mobilized in the war". With over one third of the world's population of course the British could raise 45 million men. It is a simple matter of looking at numbers.
Many young Britons were kept back in the UK as they had skills that take many, many, years to gain that was valuable to industry. Unskilled men in the empire were trained up as soldiers.
The British did lose a lot of equipment for sure. Not all of it as 2nd rate TV docs put across and much valuable stuff was taken back. Repatriation started very quickly, as soon as the French collapsed at the front. Much of the equipment was of WW1 design. The new equipment was of the latest designs. British industry was of the same size as Germany. Most of the British army and its equipment never went to France. The RAF did not use the Spitfire until the Dunkirk pocket was formed and then defeated the Germans in the air over Dunkirk. By Dec 1940, the British had a quarter of a million equipped men in North Africa and the Middle East.
You are right, US industry would have gone up a few gears if they were in the war in May 1940. It was not until late 1941/early 1942 US industry matched the UK and Germany's output. The UK was also supplying the USSR before the US came in.
The USA coming into the war in May 1940 would not have meant an immediate full on shooting war with Germany. There was no conditions for one. It would have meant securing the southern Med coast and getting rid of Vichy territory and the Vichy navy (which Churchill did do). I doubt the Italians would have entered the war, so hey would be neutralized in North Africa. The US army (not air force or navy) initially could be under the wing of the UK until up to gear. The egos of US generals and admirals (a problem in WW2) may have got in the way or have been dented.
The prime point of the USA entering the war in May 1940 was that Germany would have to face another army, air force and navy. Many historians say what brought the Germans to the peace table in 1918 was the prospect of facing another army - the US army. The US army's contribution up until the peace talks was miniscule overall, and it was ineffective with the troops and generals being green. But they knew another massive army was on its way and would get hardened up in time.
Would have the USSR change sides and formed an alliance with the UK and US? All what if but possibilities.
Basically I agree with you about this as it took the US a good 2 years to get their forces and industry up to speed before they really got going to make a difference. The US was not prepared to go to war in 1941. Ron
Actually if the US had gone to war in June 1940 it would have just meant they would have started building up their army , navy and air force a year and a half sooner.
I will say every show I see about Dunkirk says the British lost alot of equipment that they left in France. Thats all I can say about it as I really dont know just how much they lost only that all the shows I have seen seem to agree it was alot. Ron
Incorrect. The U.S. started the draft in September, 1940. This coincided with a corresponding building up ships and planes. Had the U.S. gone to war in June, 1940, we would have gotten a jumpstart of 3 months. Not 1.5 years.
There was NO all out shooting naval war. A few ships being hit is not a war. We saw no US battleships or carriers around the UK or the Med.
You should read and understand what I wrote. The British could raise 45 million men. It was equipping them that was the problems. The Australians were not in Australia quivering. They were actually used in the desert and Crete. Why would they wait at home for the Japanese who had not declared war!
No. A lot was of equipment was repatriated from Dunkirk in the early part of the evacuation. The Canadians took all theirs back via Brittany. The new equipment being made was more modern.
36,000 fought the Italians taking 130,000 prisoner. There was 100,000 troops to defend Egypt, Sudan and Palestine. In Dec 1940 126,000 Commonwealth troops arrived in Egypt from Britain, Australia, New Zealand and India.
"There was NO all out shooting naval war. We saw no US battleships or carriers around the UK or the Med."
There was never going to be all out shooting because the Germans had a small navy that was blockaded by the British and they only had about 36 U-Boats. What ships were the U.S. Navy going to fight? And how would moving additional U.S. ships into the Mediterranean have altered the course of the war?
"You should read and understand what I wrote. The British could raise 45 million men. It was equipping them that was the problems. The Australians were not in Australia quivering. They were actually used in the desert and Crete. Why would they wait at home for the Japanese who had not declared war! "
Its hard for me to take anything you write seriously when you make comments like this! The entire British population was under 45 million, so how in the world were they going to draft 45 million? Delusional.
As for the equipping part, that was my point earlier. An earlier response by Allied forces would not help the equipping situation.
"No. A lot was of equipment was repatriated from Dunkirk in the early part of the evacuation. The Canadians took all theirs back via Brittany. The new equipment being made was more modern."
Wrong. They barely evacuated 1/2 of the BEF troops. You're telling me they took the equipment first and left their troops to be Nazi POW's?
"36,000 fought the Italians taking 130,000 prisoner. There was 100,000 troops to defend Egypt, Sudan and Palestine. In Dec 1940 126,000 Commonwealth troops arrived in Egypt from Britain, Australia, New Zealand and India."
First of all, there were only 100,000 combined British-Commonwealth forces. The Commonwealth forces weren't extra, they were inclusive in that figure.
My larger point is that 100,000 is a drop in the bucket. The British were reduced to fighting battles of that size. They weren't capable of entering larger theaters requiring 1 million+ troops. That is what a European invasion required.
"Not if the Germans attack the USSR, was clear."you didn't get it. If the Germans decided to invade the USSR the dense in the west would be weak."
No crap. But that wasn't the premise of this argument. The premise was that Hitler goes to war with the U.S. and Britain, and never invades the Soviet Union. You are trying to move the goalposts on me.
Basically I agree with you about this as it took the US a good 2 years to get their forces and industry up to speed before they really got going to make a difference. The US was not prepared to go to war in 1941. Ron
It takes time to build up a war machine. It doesn't happen overnight with the flick of a light bulb. A country can only draft so many men and build so many tanks, planes, and ships per year. And it starts slowly and picks up with steam as time goes on. In early 1940, the U.S. did not have the industry in place to produce lots of tanks, planes, and ships. It took until 1942 to put the infrastructure into place before we saw big results.
The facts are that the U.S. Army and Navy were extremely small in early 1940. We had around 400,000 total Army troops (including air force) and a smaller Navy. In September, 1940, the U.S. was already aggressively preparing for war even though we wouldn't formally enter the war until December, 1941. Yet it still took 2 years before we could ship sizable forces overseas.
To put things in perspective, Germany began this process of massive re-armament in 1935, much earlier than the other powers. Germany started with 100,000 men TOTAL in 1935 when conscription began. By 1938, 3 years later, the German Army still only had about 1.5 million troops. It took Germany annexing Austria and other countries to have more manpower to draw from, and by May, 1940 Germany reached 3 million troops.
So an early U.S. entry into the war in June, 1940 would have certainly sped things up, but not enough to suddenly become this massive war machine right away. It still would have taken 2 years to become a formidable overseas force.
Incorrect. The U.S. started the draft in September, 1940. This coincided with a corresponding building up ships and planes. Had the U.S. gone to war in June, 1940, we would have gotten a jumpstart of 3 months. Not 1.5 years.
What I basucally mean is even though the US did do some things to get ready for war they were in no way ready to fight a two front war in 1941. As we know its takes time to build up forces and the US did not really get it into gear until they got in the war. Then they really got it in gear. Ron
Actually if the US had gone to war in June 1940 it would have just meant they would have started building up their army , navy and air force a year and a half sooner.
I will say every show I see about Dunkirk says the British lost alot of equipment that they left in France. Thats all I can say about it as I really dont know just how much they lost only that all the shows I have seen seem to agree it was alot. Ron
Yup, I think that is the answer for the most part. It was going to take a long time for the US to build up its ground forces.
On the other hand the Americans had a very large navy in 1940. Which is why I strongly believe that if the USA entered say on June 1, then Mussolini would not have declared war on June 10. He would have Italy sit out the war, watching and waiting like Franco in Spain, for a German victory over Britain that turned out was never to come. Since over 450,000 Italians died in WW2, this would have been a blessing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
