USA won World War Two and saved England ?

That wouldn't happen though unless someone radical like British Fascist Oswald Mosley or a appeaser like Hoare , Lord Halifax , Baldwin or Chamberlain in power.

I find it really strange that Adolf who claimed to read a lot of history and knows history couldn't figure out real reasons behind British resistance in 1940-41 era. If he could take out his idelogical / racial glasses he would figure out that ever since 16th Century successive British rulers and goverments always fought off and resisted one major power influence on Europe. That power whether Spain in 16th Century who tried to assemble an Armada to invade British Isles , French King Louis XVth in 18th Century during War of Succession or Republican France after Revolution then Napoleons Empire in same century or Kaiser Willhelm during Great War....always perceived by British as ultimate threats because once they could hold Europe with all of its potential they could strangle British trade/economy and overwhelm it easily in militarily. Hell British entered war against French Rebuplic in 1793 then Napoleons French Empire and then against Kaiser Willhelm's Second Reich in 1914 because due to their blind ambition they ruined balance of power in Europe which was adventegous British previously. Any militant and military powerful force which captured Belgium , Netherlands coastline presented a direct challenge and threat to UK national security. That's why they guaranteed territorial security of Belgium in 1833. Couldn't Adolf see that ? Couldn't he figure out he had to give some concessions to British like giving up Holland or Belgium before opening up negotiations. That kind of peace offer would be more effective to pressure Churchill's wartime coalition than Hitler's actual arrogant peace offers during July 1940 in he claimed he was the victor of all and that was the basis he should be dealt diplomatically. If anything which could convince Foreign Office that Third Reich leadership was too derenged , too radical , too much of a loose cannon that would be it. Hitler himself by invading and occupiying Western Europe in 1940 assured Churchill and his goverment remained in war. His only hope would be deposing that goverment by force by continuing war against British succesfully though considering his own long desired Crusade against Bolshevism about to start and he was relentless to unleash Barbarossa as soon as possible ever since he invaded Western Europe there was no way he could spare enough resources on this goal.

That I think shows value of clear level headed diplomacy and foreign relations above anything else. Third Reich consumed all of its diplomatic and foreign relations credit prior to war or in initial stages of war. Hitler always saw the conflict as an Darwinian struggle of arms between nations where strongest prevail than sets the terms in most humiliating way possible. When he could force and hurt badly Western Allies or Soviet Union but couldn't prevail against them he actually did not know what to do except go all the way to bitter end in most Darwinian way , Total Victory or Total Defeat in most romaticized way possible.

 

And Louis XIV - much more dangerous.

I was not just Adolph who misunderstood the British Public - it was true of the whole German Foreign Office. Remember the people they were meeting were the Establishment, Halifax, his slimy bag man RA Butler (who fortunately failed to become PM twice), Bankers, Newspaper Owners (Beaverbrook was a serious appeaser). Immediately after Dunkirk, Kennedy, the American ambassador was writing back to his Government - why don't these people (ie British Public) so cheerful , don't they realise the realise mortal danger they are in. I once asked my Mum if she had ever expected the Germans to conquer the country - "Oh no, I knew we would win".

Probably the difference between France and Britain was that the French were used to a 50 year Football match with the Germans (or Austrians\Prussians) - this time we lose but we will win the re-match. Never having suffered and occupation since the Normans in 1066, I don't think the British could conceive of losing.

I agree with you that if Hitler had spelled out his "generous" terms on 19th July (and they really had been very generous) then it might have worked. There were indications that at he might have been toying with peace terms as early as the "Halt Order" of 24th May. Certainly Goering had been feeding messages through to the French during May via the Swedes offering "generous" terms if the French surrendered once Germany had taken Calais.

My guess is Halifax would have known of this. The whole affair started by the French appealing to Mussolini to convene a peace conference and which Halifax pushed with such vigour between 26th and 28th May, could have been used by Hitler. Immediate and open offer of Generous Terms would have made Churchill's task very difficult indeed.

BTW

The French Republic attacked Holland and declared war on England. The PM, Pitt the Younger was ever bit an appeaser as Chamberlain.

However (and I think Chamberlain has a raw deal from history) he changed in a Churchill - opposing the Revolutionaries and fighting Napoleon to the bitter death.

 

Mostly I would agree with the Napoleon parallel, the British would oppose a dominant power in Europe but I think giving Hitler such ambitions is wrong, it's quite possible that with no western DOW in 1939 he would ave kept his focus East as described in Mein Kampf. (an he may have actually pulled it off as the RM pact boundaries would have put his starting line a critical 100 Km further East, with the DOW he was to weak to risk a fight when Stalin asked for more than initially agreed).
US policy, when not tending to isolation, was basically similar to the the British one, a single dominant power in continental Europe was contrary to US interests, and the extreme racist policies of the Nazis attracted little sympathy.

US contribution is hard to judge (in the sense of what would happen with a neutral USA), once Stalin's regime had seccesfully recovered from the shock of Barbarossa the Germans started getting weaker and the Soviets stronger so they may have ended up in Berlin anyway, German racist theories, and local nationalism, made making efficient use of the huge axis manpower pool problematical while the USSR suffered a lot less from that.
Britain by itself will never be able to launch an invasion of Festung Europa as without substantial amounts of US troops they cannot stand against the German army even in a two front scenario. They can launch the historical night bombing campaign but without the day element the USAAF provided the historical outcome is not guaranteed, the Germans may actually manage to step up the defences to the point where losses become unacceptable.

So without the USA the most likely outcomes in Europe are either a Soviet victory, but later than historically, or a stalemate.

 

Yes mate I'm aware of that...and as Scipio says like the majority of Brits at the time my own and Scipios families included, anyone making a separate peace at that time would have been out on their ear...That's not my point though...My point is I'm fed up to the back teeth now of you lot would be speaking German attitude if it was not for us..I know its not promulgated much on here...but the odd individual does slip through..Looking at history overall not what happened I know but if I knew then what I know now...Perhaps Britain should have just backed off and left the world to it...USA and Germany would eventually crash heads...but I'd have liked to see the result of that crash, later on in years, and see what happened with Britain on the sidelines...Stuff em all in my opinion as of now...I'm into the isolationist area of life...even today...I wish we would now retire to the sidelines and let the gameplayers play their games without us...I don't speak German today...actually I do a little...but I don't because my dad and his mates and Scipio's family, said bugger you all....come and get us if your hard enough...led by One Winston Churchill not my fave guy in history but the man for the match...And not because the 7th cavalry rode to my countries rescue.

 

I don't think making peace with Britain at third or fourth week of May 1940 was Hitler's priorty. When Hitler visited Feld-Marshall Von Rundstedt Army Group A headquarters in 24th May he was at the peak of his glory , political power and self confidence. Making peace was probably a vague idea at that point. It seems like he expected other side to come to his feet and him dictating terms (as he would to French in Compiegne a month later ) not otherwise. All of his praise of British Empire and Britain during his visit of Von Rundstedt that day sounds more like (we will never probably be sure) ramblings of a small minded ignorant tyrant who couldn't believe what he pulled (defeated mortal enemy of German expansion : France in weeks something even Kaiser's armies failed for four years ) and what he expected British goverment to do. Von Rundstedt stopped Army Group A panzers just short of Dunkirk that day because he believed (somewhat understandable) they were tired and needed to resupply and recover the losses they suffered so far in the campaign. Hitler praised the decision because he believed Allied forces encircled at Dunkirk were finished. He considered them defeated and just a mop up with infanty remained. (Goring's insistance that Luftwaffe would be enough to finish Anglo-French armies at Dunkirk was also effective ) Instead of wasting his panzer divisions in flat marshes of Belgium Hitler was restless to struck what remained of French Army at Somme in south before they strengthened their defences and pull another Marne Miracle (something French hoped and Germans dreaded due to their past experiences in 1914) Hitler would like to have Paris and France as soon as possible because of that he extended Rundstedt's "Halt" order for two more days than began to transfer panzer divisions to south. Reducing Dunkirk pocket left to infantry divisions of German Army Group B which started its attacks on Dunkirk on 26th May. Hitler's miscalculation and pre emptive assumption that Allies were defeated saved BEF not because he was making a jest or a gesture about making peace with British. In his political testimony Adolf mentioned that falsehood but fact is German Army did its best to destroy Dunkirk pocket with support of Luftwaffe but Hitler due to irrational fear of another Marne miracle and ambition of capturing Paris missed the bus of destroying BEF.

After BEF was saved in June 1940 Churchill's hand was strong enough to reject any peace terms especially vague one like Hitler did in July 1940. If Hitler had been more specific about his peace offer or willing to make concessions like guarantee of Norway , Netherlands or Belgium territorial integrity Churchill and his cabinet could indeed be in difficult position though guarantees from Adolf in 1940 did not mean much and everyone was aware of that. He should have pulled Wehrmact from these occupied territories unconditionally if he had been serious about peace or open two sided negotiations. He did not actually he just repreated Germany's established hegomony on Europe. That's it. In eyes of UK and US public Churchill's hand got stronger again against Hitler who violated at least four smaller neutral countries because they had been on his way. Actually US goverment or public were not concerned about justification of fight against Nazi Germany in 1940 summer they were concerned whether British were up to it. From perspective of defeatest remarks and reports from US Ambassador in London Joe Kennedy and some isolanist press plus pessimism from US War and State Department (Germans had even some supporters in US War Department War Plans section ) it seemed like British were ready to make some kind of deal with Hitler like French did. Attacks on French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir and then Battle of Britain fixed that. It assured everyone that as long as Churchill was in power Britain was in this fight for long term. (though it seemed like crazy back then ) That was the major factor Roosevelt could pass Destroyers vs Bases deal from Congress in September 1940 , British Purchasing Commission could buy arms and equipment from US (albeit barely due to US War Department obstacle and with dollar exchange currency and cost of liquidation of British assests in North America ) and Lend Lease Bill was passed in March 1941. In addition US East Coast press especially radio hosts like Edward Murrow created a quite positive of British under Luftwaffe aerial Blitz in 1940-41.

So in that sense Churchill's refusal of making peace with Nazi Germany also created a very positive PR image and presented a good example for US (which had a quite strong isolanism streak) to follow. Could Britain win the war without US help ? No definetely not. British Army would not recover for several months or years after Dunkirk. Without US help Churchill's coalition goverment would fall either in 1941 or 1942 and a negotiated peace would follow. Churchill pined his hopes to American intervention. At the other hand without a suitable ally , example and a base for liberation of Europe like UK , USA would not make much of anything about Europe , would look to Pacific and who knows (again I hate what if ) could ally with Third Reich once Operation Barbarossa started or advanced and then bogged down in name of fighting Communism. (Cold War with different circumstances ) Britain's standfast refusal to make peace with Nazi Germany in 1940 was a major factor in liberating Europe from Totalitarian regimes whether it was Fascism or Communism. Without Churchill British could always say "screw Europe and little democracies , situation has changed , Germans can not stand against us in Channel or invade despite having Antwerp and Channel ports , despite fall of Western Europe we can hang on in our island with our soverignty intact and an Empire to care" (though only a fool could fail to see that empire was collapsing no matter who did what. Hitler's suggestion "Shoot Gandhi , shoot Indian National Congress if that does not work shoot every Indian until civil disobedience was crushed" to Lord Halifax in 1937 was not a practical solution at all. )

sorry I went way beyond the subject....

The French Republic attacked Holland and declared war on England. The PM, Pitt the Younger was ever bit an appeaser as Chamberlain.

However (and I think Chamberlain has a raw deal from history) he changed in a Churchill - opposing the Revolutionaries and fighting Napoleon to the bitter death.



You are right. As you mentioned Pitt the Younger and his goverment fought with every resource and without compromise against Republican France though once French declared war.

 

You know as an American I hear a lot of about "well the US stayed out of the war till they were forced into it by Japan bombing Pearl Harbor and Germany actually declared war on the US otherwise we may not have entered the ETO at all". However let's face it the average American probably felt that what was happening in Europe in the period of 1939-1940 was just another case of European Powers in one of their little triades against one another,not saying that was actually the case but very well could have been and probably was the average American's perception at the time. The US probably wasn't ready for war in 1939-1940 just as it is as sometimes cited that the UK or France neither were ready for war during the Rhineland Re-Occupation or The takeover of Austria & Czechsolavakia. If somebody would have had more backbone,including the US,during 1936-1939 a lot of suffering may have been avoided but alas IMHO most countries(including the US) don't worry that much about doing right near as much as what is in THEIR BEST interests.

Now per the idea that without the British the US wouldn't have developed jet engines,proximity fuses or the cavity magnetron well just about every country was within a few % of each other technology wise during this period but it was basically a matter of industrial & economic base that could develop such things. I remember reading somewhere the production figures for the UK producing the Cavity Magnetron as follows,from late 1940 till end of 1941 Thomson-Houston Company along with GEC produced 2,000 of the types NT98 & CV38 .One then has a Birmingham plant producing like 1,000 between 1941 and 1943. In the US over a million were produced. It was reported that what the British bought over saved the US two years in development. Now per the Proximity fuse the British developed ones for bombs & rockets but the US persevered in developing one for artillery shells .

I'll close by saying most things being invented/developed involved research by several individuals from different countries.

 

I agree in basic sense. USA entered the war because of its own national interests and security NOT because of a high minded alturistic sensivity about saving UK , Europe and Western Civilization. Claiming otherwise (we saved you otherwise you will be speaking German ) would be contrary to facts. Same with UK and France in 1939. They also entered war against Germany because of one dominant military power on Euroe eventually would target them. Between 1939-41 US Army was very weak (Compulsary Service Act passed Congress barely in 1940 and 1941) It made sense from their perspective to sit and make money while UK and France fought for their existence. A writer mentioned American public watched the conflict in Europe as ME as if watching a football game. England had US public sympathy because both countries spoke English and shared similar values. But that sympathy did not turn admiration for UK shared by everybody. US Army especially War Plans section of War Department was very unethustiastc about an alliance with Great Britain. Several US Staff officers admired German military prowness much more. They even leaked war plans of US War Department to press (isolanist newspaper Chicago Tribune) in December 1941 to emberass Roosevelt and to stall US entering the war.

Technology sharing had a profound effect on war and its aftermath for consumer production though. Before the war microwave research in US was not advanced at all due to lack of funding. The material brought by Tizard mission in October 1940 made creation of MIT Radiation Lab possible to develop further research on microwave radar tech especially airborne shipborne low wave radar systems. Milimeter length radar devices used to detect U-Boats on surface , radar detection systems etc all based on cavity magneton technology brought from UK and later one US scientist working in Radiation Lab remarked cavity magneton "was revolutionary for its time" Without actual patented device (which British gave up) there wouldn't be anything to mass product.

 

My point per technology though is that even Japan developed a 500W multi-cavity magnetron in 1939 though at 10cm wave-length.The Russians managed a 300W per 10cm wavelength in 1937 while A. L. Samuel developed one of lower type power and patent in 1934. I used to firmly believe one could attribute an invention to one person/country or the other but I see now that it's usually a matter of one building upon the expierience of the other. Even the V-2 made use of some of Robert Goddard's patents/developments even though most credit goes to the Germans & Dr. Braun for bringing it to fruitition .

On the magnetron issue I got my info from "The Invention of the Cavity Magnetron and it's introduction into the US and Canada".

 

Wow...there is a lot of back and forth on this topic and some seriously 'on point' arguments being made. The historical interpretations being made, from a historians standpoint, are robust and energetic. Granted I'm entering this dialogue long after the initial topic was generated. Harking back to the original post I would have to say, arguably, that America did save the day in WWII. Wartime supplies to the Soviet Union enabled it to hang on until they could move their manufacturing facilities further east. Churchill recognized the need for American involvement and lobbied hard for it. Let us not forget that the U.S. was up to it's neck in a massive two HEMISPHERE war...forget two fronts. No other allied partner had to devote so many resources to so varied locales as the U.S. Even British forces were relegated to raiding in the CBI and if not for the American logistics pipeline would have been rendered ineffective almost immediately.

Simply put the United States brought unmatchable industrial might, quality combat forces and a logistics program to the table that NOBODY in the world at that time could equal. Certainly the Soviets deserve credit for grinding up a horrendous number of German troops on the Eastern Front. If they had not been part of the equation, if the anti-aggression pact had been real and the USSR remained 'neutral' and Germany did not invade in the summer of '41, I would argue that the U.S., with its allied partners, still could have won that war. A lot of supposition I know...sure to get some riled up. I am not saying that the U.S. won WWII single handedly. That is ludicrous on its face. I am saying that its entry into the war was THE deciding factor...only combined with other allied efforts. That statement makes perfect sense...really!!

 

NO:

The facts are the following:

1)US and Britain would defeat Germany,even if the SU was not involved in the war

2)The SU would defeat Germany,even if Britain and US were not involved in the war

 

LJAd

I would respectfully disagree with your assertion that the two statements you present are 'facts.' You might believe in a counterfactual argument whereby these events could take place as you say and you might even have anecdotal evidence that provides support for your hypothetical...but that's exactly what it is...hypothetical. The war in Europe did not happen in a vacuum. The US, Britain and the Soviet Union were allies and that is simply 'fact.' What you are presenting is some sort of reverse Boolean logic diagram where the starting point is something that never actually happened. I can provide some heavily supported counterfactuals that would indicate Germany as the eventual conquerors...given the right set of historical changes, critical assumptions and trend analysis based upon data up to the turning point. I hope you take this in the light of friendly debate as it is intended.

 

I. Wartime supplies to the Soviet Union enabled it to hang on until they could move their manufacturing facilities further east.


If they had not been part of the equation, if the anti-aggression pact had been real and the USSR remained 'neutral' and Germany did not invade in the summer of '41, I would argue that the U.S., with its allied partners, still could have won that war


I am saying that its entry into the war was THE deciding factor...



3 statements

On the first I disagree :the LL deliveries did not save the SU .BTW : that the Soviets moved their manufacturing facilities further east,is a clincher


I agree with the second : as I already wrote : Britain and the US would win against Germany



I disagree with the last : the entry of the US in the war was not the deciding factor ,because:if Britain was giving up and the US were not intervening,Germany still would lose against the SU.
BTW : I doubt that there was a deciding factor.Something that could be considered as a deciding factor is the British decision in june 1940 to continue the war,which was the beginning of the end for Germany .

 

Finally something you've said I think I can agree with. But then, I'm probably misunderstanding you.

 

LJAD

I hear what you are saying, believe me, I just happen to disagree. As I mentioned before your assertions are based upon events happening in a vacuum...as if nothing else was surrounding those decisions/actions/mistakes/successes, etc, ad nauseum. Although that is the nature of counterfactual flights of fancy they have no bearing on what is 'fact' and what is not. If you are stating that you believe a certain set of events 'would' have happened if this, then that, then this, then that, if that, then this happened there is no argument that I can provide to disprove it. My only argument was your conclusion that what you were presenting was fact when it was not...nor could it ever be. It is the equivalent of two guys in a pub arguing over who would win a game between the 1984 San Francisco 49rs and the 1975 Pittsburgh Steelers. Having said all that I will play your game.

There was no serious British decision to 'stay' or not in the war as you put it so that decision point is null. Britain was in it and with Winston taking the helm that wasn't going to change. I would argue that the decision by Hitler and the General Staff to invade Poland in 1939, before they were actually prepared to fight a continental war, was the crucial point. Discarding that I would argue, somewhat less vociferously, that allowing the Dunkirk evacuation to take place was another monumental blunder. We can only wonder what could have happened if Hitler had bided his time and waited 2 years before instigating aggressive warfare. Imagine a US, Britain and French effort in the Far East fighting off the Japanese when Germany pulls the trigger. Two years stronger, allied forces in far flung places, resources out of place, etc. Let's not forget that Germany never truly engaged their industrial engine until they were ill equipped to do so. Had they entered into the conflict with a steady resolve and total war on their mind things may have turned out differently. Maybe not...we will never know. By the way, I would take the Steelers 32-24. Can I buy ya a beer??

 

The Soviet Union had one resource that neither the US or Great Britain had: Man Power.
While the US was the "Arsenal of Democracy" and through "Lend Lease" provided much of the materiel with which to wage war, the Soviet Union had the bodies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Total_deaths

There is absolutely no way that the US or Britain could have absorbed the kind of casualties which occured on the Eastern Front.

Here are some notes on Lend Lease:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_USSR

 

LJAd

Perhaps I missed the salient point. Are we debating an issue in which one thing can happen without any input from the other? In other words, when you say that the Soviet Union could have single handedly defeated Germany are you taking into account of 'potentials' of that period in history? I guess I would have to ask at what point does your alternative history universe diverge from the historical record. This might clarify a few things.

 

Former Jughead

You are correct in the sense that the eastern front numbers would have indicated a losing effort if they had been experienced by US forces, including British troops. However, you are making the same mistake as LJAd when you presume to plug in different variables and expect the same outcomes. It's an academic exercise that has no right answer. How many of the combat casualties on the eastern front suffered by the Soviets were due to poor leadership, poor equipment, friendly fire, bad tactics, insufficient airpower, lack of preparedness, disease, logistics failures...the list goes on and on. There are thousands of variables that must be reconciled in order to make the sweeping statement that you made. I would agree that the eastern front was a meat grinder. An evil engine that was fueled by the bone and sinew of troops on both sides but it wasn't that way JUST because it was in the east. There were several million people on both sides making decisions that affected untold numbers of men, women and children. There were a few men on both sides of the equation that made catastrophically poor decisions on a regular basis that led to the massive death toll. One cannot discount the cultural and racial animosity that surrounded the Wehrmacht and SS units as they moved east. The reciprocal can be said for the eventual Soviet counter-offensive. As I mentioned to LJAd I am unsure of how to approach these counterfactual arguments. They sure are fun but we must always understand that they are ephemeral and likely to float away at the slightest touch because they are grounded in nothing. If I sound pedantic I apologize... My only true argument with all of this has been that nothing outside the actual historical record can be counted as fact. We can make any number of arguments based upon 'what ifs...' but we must start the debate there. There is enough data and historiography to make an argument either way on the US contribution to defeating Germany in WWII.

 

I take issue with the thread title.
USA won World War Two and saved England ?

It's not just England.
It should read
USA won World War Two and saved The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

As for 'What If's..'' , waste of time & energy even thinking about them.

 

Actually the British Empire had more "bodies" than the USSR by a considerable margin.