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.
Location: Finally escaped The People's Republic of California
11,314 posts, read 8,655,857 times
Reputation: 6391
Advertisements
Well I think the Nazi's had pretty much given up on trying to whip the Brits, The Brits had whipped them in the Battle of Britain, Had a far better Navy, better intelligence network, and had the U-Boats pretty much on the run...Now they would have had some great suffering if not for American Supplies, but they would have prevailed...
I also think that the Germans just bit off more than they could chew when it came to the Soviet Union, kind of like a Giant Custer's last Stand, there were more Soviets than the Germans had Bullets, and ultimatley the Reds would have taken over the whole of Europe, as without American support there never would have been a D-Day..........
Had America never entered the war a second front would not have been opened up and Hitler could have fought the Rusians with more.
By the time the "Allies" got their act together and invaded Normandy the Soviets had already stopped the Germans at Stalingrad and served them a massive defeat at Kursk. German forces in Western Europe would not have had a major impact on the Soviet offensive. This however in no means is meant to underestimate the importance of American and western supplies given, sold or loaned to the Soviet Union.
Good post. The supplies sent to the Russians were important, probably very important. But they did not make the difference between defeat and victory. The Russian armor that defeated the nazis was home grown. As was their excellent artillery.
By June of 1944 - the opening of the second front - the Germans were on the run in the East and had been for some time.
Without America in the war Germany wins.They take and hold North Africa and the Middle East with its vital oil.They keep Sicily since it is never invaded,nor is Italy.Italy remains in the war on Germanys side.Britain is cut off and isolated as Admiral Doenitz's U boats continue to ravage and destroy the Royal Navy and dominate the Atlantic and Mediterranean.Goerings Luftwaffe continues to pound all of the UK and the RAF.There is no need to initiate a costly invasion of Great Britain;they are isolated and are effectively out of the war.There is only token bombing of German targets and their industrial might remains virtually intact.In the East,without US aid wartime production in the USSR sputters and becomes almost hopeless.With only token fighting going on in other places,Hitler frees up hundreds of thousands of soldiers and concentrates all of Germanys might toward a weakened Soviet Union.There would have been no need to station all of those divisions in the West,since there would not have been a Normandy,and there would have been no threat of invasion.Yes indeed,history would have been very,very different had America stayed out of the European war and remained isolationist.
Actually the Brits had much to be proud of before the United States entered the war. They had stopped the 'invincible' German military machine, handed the Luftwaffe its first defeat, and still controlled the seas. Most of that was accomplished while fighting the Germans and the Italians on their own.
Your disparagement of them notwithstanding, they have nothing to apologize for and in fact were in no danger of defeat by the Germans in December of 1941, as had been a real possibility in the summer of 1940. The fact that they were not is due almost totally to their own efforts.
I've read some books lately that gave me a new assesment of England at that stage before the U.S. entered the war. They really were at a bad stage. Sure they won the Battle of Britian and ruled the skies over their own country, and the fear of invasion by Germany was over at least for the time being. But England was otherwise beaten, they were a beaten people. They would have lost Northern Africa, and then the middle east, if not for the U.S. influx of Grant tanks, and the thought of having an western north africa front opened up, that I am sure of.
The problem for England, in spite of Churchill's rehtoric of England soldiering on alone, was they didn't have the stomach themselves of fighting a European continental war. To many bad memories of Ypers and Somme. They were not ready to loose another generation of young men. They would have fought for their own Island, but not for the French, or Belgium, or Netherlands.
The US gave them the second wind, the encouragement that was needed - to take the offense in Northern Africa, to invade Italy, and finally to open up the western front. Without the US, D-Day in France would not have happened.
The Russians? They got a hell of alot of aid from the US. More than people can imagine. Probably not enough to make the difference between winning and losing, but enough to put them at the Polish border probably a year sooner than they would have otherwise.
I've read some books lately that gave me a new assesment of England at that stage before the U.S. entered the war. They really were at a bad stage. Sure they won the Battle of Britian and ruled the skies over their own country, and the fear of invasion by Germany was over at least for the time being. But England was otherwise beaten, they were a beaten people. They would have lost Northern Africa, and then the middle east, if not for the U.S. influx of Grant tanks, and the thought of having an western north africa front opened up, that I am sure of.
The problem for England, in spite of Churchill's rehtoric of England soldiering on alone, was they didn't have the stomach themselves of fighting a European continental war. To many bad memories of Ypers and Somme. They were not ready to loose another generation of young men. They would have fought for their own Island, but not for the French, or Belgium, or Netherlands.
The US gave them the second wind, the encouragement that was needed - to take the offense in Northern Africa, to invade Italy, and finally to open up the western front. Without the US, D-Day in France would not have happened.
The Russians? They got a hell of alot of aid from the US. More than people can imagine. Probably not enough to make the difference between winning and losing, but enough to put them at the Polish border probably a year sooner than they would have otherwise.
I guess I take issue with the statements I have bolded. There was no chance of a German invasion of England by late 1941. Britain was much stronger by then than she had been in the summer of 1940, when an invasion might have been feasible had the Luftwaffe been able to destroy the RAF. The Royal Navy still controlled the seas, and especially the English Channel. And the RAF was even stronger than it had been in 1940. So I can see no scenario where the Germans could have invaded England by the time the U.S. entered the war, even assuming they could have assembled the surface navy and the landing craft necessary for such an invasion.
I also take issue with your claim that the Brits were a 'beaten people' by 1942. On the contrary, morale was pretty good and there was no indication that they wanted to do anything other than continue the war. I'm curious what you mean by the term 'beaten people'. Do you mean they were ready to throw in the towel? I spent 4 years in England during the late 50's, when my dad was stationed there, and that was not the impression I got from talking to British people.
I do agree with you that it is difficult to imagine how the Brits could have carried the war to the continent without American involvement. A stalemate would have probably been the most likely result, with the British raiding the continent in commando-type raids and bombing German targets with the one weapon the germans didn't have - a four engine bomber.
Without America in the war Germany wins.They take and hold North Africa and the Middle East with its vital oil.They keep Sicily since it is never invaded,nor is Italy.Italy remains in the war on Germanys side.Britain is cut off and isolated as Admiral Doenitz's U boats continue to ravage and destroy the Royal Navy and dominate the Atlantic and Mediterranean.Goerings Luftwaffe continues to pound all of the UK and the RAF.There is no need to initiate a costly invasion of Great Britain;they are isolated and are effectively out of the war.There is only token bombing of German targets and their industrial might remains virtually intact.In the East,without US aid wartime production in the USSR sputters and becomes almost hopeless.With only token fighting going on in other places,Hitler frees up hundreds of thousands of soldiers and concentrates all of Germanys might toward a weakened Soviet Union.There would have been no need to station all of those divisions in the West,since there would not have been a Normandy,and there would have been no threat of invasion.Yes indeed,history would have been very,very different had America stayed out of the European war and remained isolationist.
They had been unable to take and hold North Africa prior to December of 1941, and in fact were pretty much at a stalemate.
Doenitz's U-boats were never able to ravage and destroy the Royal Navy. They had a tremendous impact on merchant shipping, but the Brits were starting to get pretty good at ASW. The Royal Navy only got stronger after 1941.
The Russians had moved almost all of their industrial base to east of the Urals, where they churned out artillery and T-34 tanks in incredible numbers. There's no proof that the aid sent by the United States - or by the Brits for that matter - was instrumental in the ultimate Soviet victory in the East. For one thing, we simply couldn't get that much material to them. It helped but it wasn't instrumental.
American involvement in the war was essential to the defeat of Hitler, but there's no proof that without it Hitler would have prevailed.
I guess I take issue with the statements I have bolded. There was no chance of a German invasion of England by late 1941. Britain was much stronger by then than she had been in the summer of 1940, when an invasion might have been feasible had the Luftwaffe been able to destroy the RAF. The Royal Navy still controlled the seas, and especially the English Channel. And the RAF was even stronger than it had been in 1940. So I can see no scenario where the Germans could have invaded England by the time the U.S. entered the war, even assuming they could have assembled the surface navy and the landing craft necessary for such an invasion.
I also take issue with your claim that the Brits were a 'beaten people' by 1942. On the contrary, morale was pretty good and there was no indication that they wanted to do anything other than continue the war. I'm curious what you mean by the term 'beaten people'. Do you mean they were ready to throw in the towel? I spent 4 years in England during the late 50's, when my dad was stationed there, and that was not the impression I got from talking to British people.
I do agree with you that it is difficult to imagine how the Brits could have carried the war to the continent without American involvement. A stalemate would have probably been the most likely result, with the British raiding the continent in commando-type raids and bombing German targets with the one weapon the germans didn't have - a four engine bomber.
My words "beaten people" were pretty strong I agree, probably too strong. I also agree there was no chance of a german invasion by 1941. Hitler shot his wad in the Battle of Britian and lost, and by 1941 was too busy in Russia. What I meant by that statement was really stressed in the 2nd paragraph. There was no way England could go on the offensive into the continent of Europe. The English people did not have the will to fight a continental war alone, not with memories of WW1 on there mind. They (many of the British Generals and Churchill, remembering the disaster at Galipoli) even resisted the idea of landing on the French coast until Marshal and Roosevelt almost insisted on it. The horrors of WWI really clouded there decisions. I think England would have settled for a peace/cease fire of sorts with Germany if not for America and Russia.
Ultimately the entry of the US into the European theatre accomplished two primary things;
1) Hastened the end of the War
2) Prevented a ultimate Soviet victory, and a Soviet hegimony on the European continent.
Germany by the US entry was already beginning to show cracks, and has been pointed out multiple times, had already been seriously bloodied by the Red Army. The UK was not in danger of falling, however were in no real position to start regaining ground. Ultimately the Soviets would have been the dominant power through their ability to sacrifice humans and produce weaponry to a near US level, and would have been able to dictate terms for to their maximum advantage.
My words "beaten people" were pretty strong I agree, probably too strong. I also agree there was no chance of a german invasion by 1941. Hitler shot his wad in the Battle of Britian and lost, and by 1941 was too busy in Russia. What I meant by that statement was really stressed in the 2nd paragraph. There was no way England could go on the offensive into the continent of Europe. The English people did not have the will to fight a continental war alone, not with memories of WW1 on there mind. They (many of the British Generals and Churchill, remembering the disaster at Galipoli) even resisted the idea of landing on the French coast until Marshal and Roosevelt almost insisted on it. The horrors of WWI really clouded there decisions. I think England would have settled for a peace/cease fire of sorts with Germany if not for America and Russia.
You are right about the Brits being terribly concscious of the tremendous losses they suffered during WW I. General Montgomery, who was often criticized by his American allies (although not all of them - Some of the american generals who temporarily served under him spoke rather well of him) for being too cautious, but anybody who knew his history would have understood his caution. He served as young officer during the first war, was severly wounded in combat, and was very conscious of minimizing casualties:
After recovering in early 1915, he was appointed to be brigade major[38] training Kitchener's New Army and returned to the Western Front in early 1916 as an operations staff officer during the battles of the Somme, Arras, and Passchendaele. During this time he came under IX Corps, part of General Sir Herbert Plumer's Second Army. Through his training, rehearsal, and integration of the infantry with artillery and engineers, the troops of Plumer's Second Army were able to achieve their objectives efficiently and without unnecessary casualties. Montgomery served at the battles of the Lys and Chemin-des-Dames before finishing the war as General Staff Officer 1 and effectively chief of staff of the 47th (2nd London) Division, with the temporary rank of lieutenant-colonel.[39] A photograph from October 1918 shows the then unknown Lt.-Col. Montgomery standing in front of Winston Churchill (Minister of Munitions) at the victory parade at Lille.
If you ever visit Britain, it seems like every town and village you go into has a memorial up listing the dead from WW 1 on it. It's really quite remarkable.
Good discussion.
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.
