USA won World War Two and saved England ?

Sloniskip-the stuff you quoted was clearly by some revisionist clown!-without help from the U.S.A.- between 1939-41 especially- we British could not have held out indefinitely against the Nazis.
THE fact that the source that you quote says ''England'' when they really mean the ''United Kingdom'' in W.W.2, shows how dumb the person expressing the views you quote was.
I'd like to walk this clown around the American War Cemetery at Madingley, near Cambridge, England, which I visited in 1997,and show him the rows of white Headstones similar to those shown in the opening and closing scenes ofthe 'Saving Private Ryan' movie. Graves which show how vacuous and idiotic seeing America's contribution to Britain in W.W.2 solely in terms of dollars and pounds really is.!

 

Refresh my memory please how did the U.S. help united kingdom from 1939-41 other then what was mentioned. Considering the fact that the U.S. entered the war 2 years after England did.

 

They're called convoys? On those convoys were the much needed raw and war materiel that helped them to defend themslves and to wage war back at the Germans from 1939-1941. Thats how the US helped them. We even helped the Russians with the lend-lease program of 1940 to allow us to ship vital war materials to them to fend off the German onslaught in 1941.

Regards,
MARNE

 

Marne you are correct sorry I for some reason I thought Duns referred to actual troops. ( yes I know that a small amount of U.S. pilots volunteered to got to England and help fight the nazis )

 

Its actually kind of funny but, believe it or not do you know who the first US troops were there on the ground in England....? Its a funny revelation...nope not the US Army, nope not the USAAC...Nope not the US Navy....it was....THE US MARINES!...They were guarding the US Embassy there in London!

Regards,
MARNE

 

Plus the 1st Division USMC garrisoned Iceland until the US Army got its act together.

Dont forget that the USA forced the Brits to pay for these supplies, which bankrupted the UK many years. Or they handed over obsolete DD's in exchange for Stategic bases, many which are still US Military bases.

IMHO,

The British Commonwealth saved Great Britain and the USSR won the war (In Europe at least).

Without the volunteers from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India etc etc the Brits would have either surrendered vast swathes of Africa or weakend the defenses of Great Britain to a point where Invasion may have been possible. The Commonwealth Navies supported the RN and many RAF Aircrew were from the Commonwealth, even before the EATS was in place.

Weapons from Commonwealth arsenals helped re-equip the Britiah Army after Dunkerque and foodstuffs shipped in kept its population fed.

 

Well Ali,

Your close but not quite there...

Your are correct in saying the 6th Marines were a part of the 1st Marine Division. However, once they reached Charleston, South Carolina they were no longer apart of the 1st Marine Division. They had been redesignated too..the 1st Marine Provisional Brigade. The entire 6th Marines at the beginning of the war were not up to full strength so officers and enlisted personnel of the 2nd and 8th Marine Regiments volunteered to for duty in the 6th Marines to bring them up to wartime strength.

Regards,
MARNE

 

As I read it, it was Great Britain and the Commonwealth Nations, along with the U.S. as allies, who fought and won both wars - the one in Europe and the one in the Pacific. I say this because it was like fighting two almost separate wars.

There were plenty of New Zealanders and Australians who fought in all three theaters - Europe, C.B.I., and Pacific.

The author of the article in the original post neglects to mention the Lend-Lease Act of March, 1941. I wonder why.

JT




If the caption is illegible, the photo shows New Zealand machine gunners in the Monte Cassino Sector, 1944, armed with Smith & Wesson .38-200 revolvers.

 

Actually, there are four theatres...Europe, Pacific and the two most neglected theatres...C.B.I. and the Mediterranean, so really...ETO, PTO, CBI and the MTO.

Regards,
MARNE

 

Point taken. I included the Mediterranean in the ETO. But what about North Africa? Is that included in the MTO, or is it a separate theater?

JT

 

And the Aleutians & Caribbean

 

Hey JT,

Its included into the MTO....

When individuals forget to mention the MTO or the CBI its just one of my erks...it simply disheartens me to see it neglected since so many fought, were made fun of and poked at and died in the theatre and then its cast aside like it was never part of WWII. So, whenever I do living histories and get the chance to talk about the MTO I do, to remind the public that there were soldiers fighting and dieing for every inch of ground before D-DAY and before the Easy Co. 506th PIR crowd ever finished jump school.

Ali,

Quite right, we musn't forget the north Pacific and the south Atlantic there was a alot of fighting going on in those regions aswell.

Regards,
MARNE

 

Hello Marne:

Understood. It certainly makes sense to include the North Africa, Sicily, and Italy campaigns in the same theater, the Mediterranean.

From my limited experience, two of the most neglected and forgotten areas are the Phillipines Campaign (exclusive of naval engagements - I'm taking about liberation of the islands) and the C.B.I. How many youngsters of today have heard of Frank Merrill or Joseph Stilwell, to say nothing of Ord Wingate?

JT

 

Sloinskip -Whci history books do you read?-''England has never been at war with Germany in its entire history-only the United Kingdom-England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Irleand were at war with Germany between 1939-45.
''England lost the right to make war independently on anybody in 1707 when she signed the Treaty of union with Scotland.

 

First off FDR new that it would be considered an offense to the Axis if he 'gave' supplies to the allies to fight the axis. So he brought in the Lend-Lease Act, this allowed for free trade throughout the atlantic. so we were allowed to sell/lend supplies to the allies. Second we did save England. Englands army was out, their navy couldn't leave the harbor (for fear of U boats), and they'd lost their foot hold in the Pacific. The last place they had that wasn't their own soil was africa. They would have probably lost this if it weren't for the U.S. invasion of the Solomon islands. England (excluding africa) had been driven back to its own soil and was preparing for the obvious imminent invasion. Yes they won the battle of britian (with American planes mind you), but that alone wouldn't have stopped hitler. You can't win a war simply by being on the defensive, you have to go out an attack you enemy sometime. England had no where to go, it couldn't launch any offensives, it was essentially trapped on it's own island. Third, Russia was definetly keeping the germans busy. But until the American invasion of the medditeranean, Russia was all it had to worry about. Until the invasion of italy, Germany was winning the battle with russia. when we invaded southern europe in 43 hitler had to send much of his needed troops on the eastern front to fight in italy. Same with the invasion of france. If we never fought hitler there is strong evidence to suggest that hitler would have eventually defeated stalin (especially if japan invaded the USSR). It was the fact that from the moment we invaded europe hitler now had to fight a war on two fronts. The plain fact of the matter is, we couldn't have done it without russia, and russia couldn't have done it without us. when we invaded europe it relieved immense pressure from russia.

But the article fails to mention any of the countless attacks on U.S. ships by u boats, which infuriated Americans. Or the attack on Pearl Harbor, which brought the U.S. into the war in the first place. FDR new he would never be able to gain enough support for a pre emptive attack on the axis, so he never asked for it. America did care about the war before we entered it. But for us it was an "over there" kind of war. It didn't effect enough of us for us to want to get involved in it. That is, until Pearl Harbor.

What everyone needs to remember is that the allies defeated the axis. not the russians, or Americans or british. It was a team effort. Without one of the essiential positions on the team we were doomed. We needed Russia to win, we needed Britian to win. We didn't need france, but we needed America to win. No single nation could have alone defeated the axis. However it is a fact that America entering the war turned the tide. As Yamamotto said after he bombed Pearl Harbor: "I fear we have awoken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve."

 

I do agree they needed the western front but anyways Germany´s losses took place 80% in the ostfront.

 

If I may add some comments...

I believe our British colleagues in this forum will take exception to the term England instead of the United Kingdom. Also they will not appreciate having the words "Fear" and "Royal Navy" associated in the same sentence.

I fail to see the connection between Africa and the Solomon Islands. Can you please clarify in terms of space and time frames?

Ah, yes, we have all heard about the Lend-Lease Hurricanes and Spitfires the USA gave the UK.

Well, it was quite busy more or less ruining the Italian African empire when the Germans showed up slowing down the process a bit.

Then why was the German '43 Summer offensive stopped dead in it's tracks followed by a mojor counter-offensive that liberated a major part of Ukraine?

Can you specify which units were transferred from which places in the Eastern Front so we can see how significant this actually was?

See my comment above on the German Summer offensive, after August '43 the Soviet army was in full swing. Also, I still have to detect a Japanese intention to invade Soviet territory after the Khalkin-Gol and Nonmonhan affairs, so that's a bit If.

Not quite. When the Normandy invasion took place, at the same time the Soviet Union was unleashing something later called "Destruction of Army Group Centre" (Op. Bagration) which dwarfed the immediate effects of Overlord.

Are you quoting an article? What article are you talking about?

That I agree.

 

Za, You were far too polite.

This was the greatest load of tripe I've read for a long time!!!!

Sadly, this comes across as the average American's knowledge base, I'm sure that is wrong but its these types of comments which build up the stereotype.

 

I hadn't noticed this post until Za pointed it out, what would we have done without all those Spits and Hurricanes so kindly imported by America before she'd even entered the war? Why we'd have had to rely on on our own P51's without the superb and therefore obviously American Merlin Engine, and that was a shocker.

And Ted As for Implying that the Navies, both Royal and Merchant were 'afraid' to leave harbour. You may be thinking of the German navy there.. Frankly it's insulting to many brave mens memory to say that the Navies did anything other than to face near every threat full on. The Uboats may have hunted freely but the Navy did not run, she took it & took it hard until she was eventually fully able to return the favour, with extras. If you have any doubts about the RN's courage look up the events around the evacuation of Crete, summed up beautifully and poignantly by Cunningham's "It takes three years to build a ship, it takes three centuries to build a tradition".

It worries me that we still hear this kind of arse.

Please Ted , stick around, there's so much to be learnt on this site but posting unsubstantiated 1960's hollywood-style assessments of the war will, i'm afraid, expose you to being torn to pieces.
Cheers,
Adam.

 

Yes Miguel you are truly a man to admire!!!

Ali Morshead, I actually went to school in the U.S. and listened to teachers talk the same way about the war that Ted has. Yes it is very sad.

I truly believe that the reason why most Americans in general know very little about the war is because it wasnt fought on their continent.

Thank god for us peasants that the good old Yanks came to our aid!!!!!