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.
I hear this quit often, and I just saw this in another thread again. Although he said "if it wasn't for the U.S. and Britain, France would be speaking German". I hear this mostly in response to criticism of the U.S. ,though.
I think Britain did successfully defend itself and counterattacked on its own. Maybe if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia and completely focused on the U.K., they would have been able to defeat them. But since he did invade Russia fought too many wars, I think they could have continued this without any help. Of course, France is a different story. They were probably completely lost on their own. I don't think many Americans give the British enough credit.
What's your take on this or what do you think about those statements?
If you go back and research the amount of materials sent not only to the Brits, but to the Russians as well, you'll find that to be a true statement. If it were not for the US, the French and Brits would be speaking German today and the Russian map would be totally different. Considering other factors, such as the Germans were not hotly pursuing the atomic bomb but Japan was and that the Germans did not have the aircraft to deliver such ordinance to the US soil, we could be speaking Japanese. But that's a BIG could be. There are a lot of major "what ifs" with WWII like what if Hitler had waited another year before attacking England. He would have had jet fighters and much better weapons for war. Had he not invaded Russia but waited to be in concert with the Japanese, attacked at a much later date, he could have beaten them as well. Had Hitler had the time to develop the V3 gun and the 800mm Gustav weapon, he could have bombed England into submission and never put a single plane in their sky. He could have built the same type of weapons for the Russians as well. But that's not history. But had the USA not supplied the Brits and Russians with food, medicine, and war materials, the world would be totally different today.
While most Americans think that the USA was the deciding factor in the European War when we sent troops, we were not that much of a factor. We had just over 300,000 troops in that war. The nation that suffered the most in WWII was the Russians with over 29 million people, soldiers and civilians, killed. The US war was with the Japanese which we fought with other allies like the Australians. The Brits were not much help as they had their own war going on and their fleet was pretty much out of use after the Battle at the Gulf of Siam.
If you go back and research the amount of materials sent not only to the Brits, but to the Russians as well, you'll find that to be a true statement.
In early 1940 ( air raids )?
If it were not for the US, the French and Brits would be speaking German today and the Russian map would be totally different.
Again, I don't agree. They did successfully fend off the air raids themselves. Did they not? After that, the focus shifted from the British to the Russians.
Considering other factors, such as the Germans were not hotly pursuing the atomic bomb but Japan was and that the Germans did not have the aircraft to deliver such ordinance to the US soil, we could be speaking Japanese. But that's a BIG could be. There are a lot of major "what ifs" with WWII like what if Hitler had waited another year before attacking England. He would have had jet fighters and much better weapons for war. Had he not invaded Russia but waited to be in concert with the Japanese, attacked at a much later date, he could have beaten them as well. Had Hitler had the time to develop the V3 gun and the 800mm Gustav weapon, he could have bombed England into submission and never put a single plane in their sky. He could have built the same type of weapons for the Russians as well. But that's not history. But had the USA not supplied the Brits and Russians with food, medicine, and war materials, the world would be totally different today.
Well, but they didn't have all that. But they did attach the U.K. and were not successful because the U.K. was obviously a tougher enemy. From what I remember, the U.S wasn't directly involved until October 1941, and that was only naval warfare ( don't remember where exactly ). And the focus had already shifted by then.
While most Americans think that the USA was the deciding factor in the European War when we sent troops, we were not that much of a factor. We had just over 300,000 troops in that war. The nation that suffered the most in WWII was the Russians with over 29 million people, soldiers and civilians, killed. The US war was with the Japanese which we fought with other allies like the Australians. The Brits were not much help as they had their own war going on and their fleet was pretty much out of use after the Battle at the Gulf of Siam.
I actually do think the U.S. was a major factor. But the British stopped the bombing and possible invasion by themselves. I think D-day was a major turning point, but all that happened after the U.K. had already defended itself successfully. Which is why I think it's a little ignorant to make those statements I mentioned in the OP. The British get quite angry when they hear this.
I know that "speaking German" is shorthand for "being conquered by Germany," but didn't Vichy France conduct the vast bulk of its affairs and print the majority of its documents in French? The Germans weren't really conquerors in the linguistic sense...
I hear this quit often, and I just saw this in another thread again. Although he said "if it wasn't for the U.S. and Britain, France would be speaking German". I hear this mostly in response to criticism of the U.S. ,though.
I think Britain did successfully defend itself and counterattacked on its own. Maybe if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia and completely focused on the U.K., they would have been able to defeat them. But since he did invade Russia fought too many wars, I think they could have continued this without any help. Of course, France is a different story. They were probably completely lost on their own. I don't think many Americans give the British enough credit.
What's your take on this or what do you think about those statements?
You think France was *probably* lost on their own? Seriously?
Without the US, britain was basically naval blockaded by the subs. Germany would have choked them out and it was a near thing even with US help.
If you are criticizing someones country they are somewhat likely to come back with a somewhat accurate dig against you and given no country is perfect.....
You think France was *probably* lost on their own? Seriously?
Without the US, britain was basically naval blockaded by the subs. Germany would have choked them out and it was a near thing even with US help.
If you are criticizing someones country they are somewhat likely to come back with a somewhat accurate dig against you and given no country is perfect.....
The outcome may well have been different without US involvement, but Hitler's eye was always on Russia to the east. He was actually reluctant to attack Britain, even after it declared war on Germany following the invasion of Poland. Without US involvement, Germany may have progressed further, but ultimately, Stalin and Hitler's deteriorating mental and physical state would still have been the equalizing factor and Germany's eventual undoing. I also believe that even without US assistance, Hitler would not have been able to land troops on British soil: 1) because of the English Channel divide and 2) the British Navy was far superior and would have crushed any attempts by Germany to land troops via sea on British soil. I just think that without US involvement, Britain would have had to somehow pull out of the war completely and concede defeat, avoiding any German land invasion.
Location: Finally escaped The People's Republic of California
11,317 posts, read 8,659,555 times
Reputation: 6391
The Brits were hungry but secure, by the time of Pearl Harbor, the British had already won the Battle of Britian. The Nazis had no way of invading with the Royal Navy intact. Without the U.S. However all of Europe except the Brits, Might have fallen under Soviet control. As well as most of Asia under Japanese control..China and Japan would have waged war on each other for many more years.
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.
