USA won World War Two and saved England ?

If Churchill had died at that time I'm not sure you can say Britain would have continued. Yes in the short term, but a new leader and there were by that time a few who could take up the reins would have changed the direction to whatever they and their new because they would appoint a new govt...their new govt felt it right to do..In my own opinion..the guy who would have been amicable to the population and may have not stood apart and took up those reigns would have taken us further to the Russians than to the Americans. Sir Staffor Cripps was held in hight esteem with the general public and his peers in palriament. But never challenged Churchill in a time when he knew the country needed no such challenge on top of a war...But believe me...if Churchill had been out of the picture...things would change..and probably with much support for him and his ideas in Britain.

 

Hm:

1)Before the war,Cripps had been expelled from the Labour Party,because of his ultra-left opinions:Cripps was the pré war Tony Benn.

2)As the Conservatives had a majority in the Commons,the new PM would be a Tory ,who would be chosen by Chamberlain;after the death of Chamberlain,the new PM still would be a Chamberlainite(Eden was not a serious choice) who would continue the war .

 

No. Eden would be the conservative choice after Churchill. Cripps was kicked out of Labour party and re admitted. In an opinion poll to the public He rivalled Eden by only 3 or 4 percent. Cripps following in the country at large was respectable. Churchill however did not die, but he knew he was and could be threatened by Cripps and the move to his Air job was directly because of this, his assignment to India was a later move to get him out of the way. Cripps was no small player. The only thing standing in his way, and change of war methodolgy was Churchill and maybe Eden. The Conservatives would not be choosing any prime minister after Winston. If they tried then the national coalition would fall.

 

I certainly wouldn't call him a early Tony Benn. From a left point of view, he was riling against the facists and the Liberal and conservative appeasers before ww2 as much as Winston did. In fact his appointments without having a party backing in the war govts, showed just how much support he did weald behind the scenes. His appointment to Russia as Britains ambassador, at the time of his appointment was not a sop, It was a genuine appointment of a senior parlimantarian without a party backing at the time. If not a serious contender he would not have got the job without any party backing of any sort. If we look for politicians of today to compare him to, Benn is not the man. Benn was never going to be a serious challenger for Leadership in Britian apart from his own left wing backers in 70's and 80's.

Cripps, could call for support from across all sides of the house. Even when not a member of any paticular party. No...if comparing him to todays recent politicos, you'd not be far from the brush by mentioning the name Alex Salmond, even if not same views or same wing of any argument. But his overall following thru the country...and respect..Even in England and not Scotland today...Purely popularity rather than ability to vote for maybe even the leader of UKIP.

Cripps's popularity in the nation at large was big whilst and initially after his time in Russia, which did change his views somewhat..But overall, he was in a position if Churchill had dissapeared to mount an effective and real leadership challenge to what would still have to be a coalition not just Conservative leader of the country at large.

 

Oh come now, this is a massive intellectual conceit.

Britain and France as the main victors of the Great War set the terms which were designed to keep Germany from rising too quickly from the ashes of defeat. Disarmament, demilitarization of Germany's main industrial area, Occupation of the same, prevention of Austria from becoming part of Germany as they wished too, and the creation of powerful states bordering Germany incorporating significant German minorities that either offered good defensive ground or access to the to the greater world.

Certainly there existed the general perception among the populaces of Britain, France, Czechoslovakia, Poland and indeed Europe as a whole that the fabric of the post war border adjustments were designed to allow these new and old nations could/would act collectively to check a resurgent Germany, whatever their governments said officially.

To be brutally honest it is even a greater conceit on the part of Britain and France to on one hand say they will intervene if attacked by Germany, but infer that the Czech Republic should yield the Sudetenland or fight alone against a German attack.

 

CZ was worth the fight....Britain and France for whatever reason history now decides.....should have acted over CZ. Poland was the final line in the sand...Morraly...I for one in hindsight would never have gone to war over Poland. Over CZ yes..We were not ready at the time of CZ, but neither where we ready at the time of Poland. That excuse has been repeated so often its taken...CZ Was the time and place. Poland was an excuse.

 

In 1919,Britain refused publicly to guarentee the borders of Eastern Europe

In 1926,A.Chamberlain,the pro-French foreign secretary said that Eastern Europe was not worth the bones of a British grenadier

In 1937,Halifax told Hitler that Britain would not object if the whole region was dominated by Germany,as long it happened peacefully .

Before 1914,Poland and CZ did not exist,and no one in Britain complained .

CZ was an artificial state,dominated by the Czechs,and its survival was not essential for Britain .Thus,why should Britain fight to prevent the Sudeten Germans to join the Reich ? After the war,the SG joined Germany : they were expelled .Thus,why should Britain fight in 1938? WWI had been fought to give all peoples the right of self-determination : if the Serbs could quit AH,the Poles could leave the Russian Empire,if the Irish could become independant,why could the SG not leave CZ ?

 

Sudeten Germans made wrong decision centuries ago: they colonized the Kingdom of Bohemia – a Czech state within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. After the dissolution of the empire, Czech became independent and the German minority remained minority within a "foreign" state where they had preferential treatment for centuries. This was the seed of a large problem.

 

Belasar your post is absolutely correct in as far as it concerns France.

However what is incorrect is lumping in Britain. The British were almost as bad as the Americans in their desire for isolation from Europe.

Starting early in the 1920's and developing throughout the decade the British increasingly thought that the Germans had been badly treated at Versailles and that the French were being unduly aggressive. The British avoided any pacts with any European Country until well into the 1930's and even avoided co-operating with the French in military discussions. Even Lloyd-George considered that WW1 had been a mistake and that better communications between countries and avoiding mutual Defence Pacts could bring a lasting peace.

Czechoslovakia was seen as an artificial construction and no British Government would have been able to carry public opinion to declare War on Germany. Hitler's absorption of the Rump of Czechoslovakia turned Chamberlain and I believe British opinion.

 

Yes,but the problem was there,and was not created by Hitler : there was a new state (CZ) which never had existed,dominated by the Czechs (55 % of the population) and of which 25 % (Sudeten Germans) wanted to leave for Germany : what were the possible solutions ?

1) They must remain in CZ,which was only possible by the use of force,and which was rejected by the majority of the British people

2) Let them go :this happened in 1938


3) expell them : this happened in 1945


A few people (Churchill) were partisan of the first solution,saying that the right of seld-determination of the SG had to yield to the political and military interests of CZ. But,these people (Churchill) were discredited in their own country,and considered as reactionaries and crypto-fascists:Winston had always the unwise custom to say things that were not PC,as(in 1931) his proposal to abolish universal suffrage;his opposition to more autonomy for India,his intrigues against Baldwin ,and his public support for Mussolini had as result that a lot of people considered him as a dangerous person,unfit to become a minister..

 

On november 5 1937, in secret session at the Chancellery Hitler sketched out his foreign policy programme. His first intention was revision of Versailles without general war. Then he anticipated the ‘great world conflict’ in five or six years’ time, a conflict that would only end by the early 1950s with construction of Speer's monuments in the new capitol – Germania. Whatever any other government did was of no relevance because already at that time Germany was at collision course with England. It wasn't just the question of borders of Poland or Czechoslovakia. The ultimate goal was defeat of Britain and Lebensraum at the east.

Churchill was right and he was the right man to oppose the Nazis.

 

@skipper

That's entirely true, but Poland was similar problem if not a part of the same larger problem. There was substantial German minority in Poland too and Poles weren't so gentle to them. If Hitler stopped in Poland he would have succeeded too by dragging the Phoney war indefinitely. However it wasn't to be because Adolf was a megalomaniac.

 

Better strategy was to leave the Rump of Czechoslovakia as an independent country (but weak and obviously subservient), argue with Poland over Danzig - Again there would be no British or French Guarantee and the proud Poles would fight and get swallowed up. The way is then clear to take on the USSR.

 

That's logical but the German rearmament plans were too ambitious to be achieved without expansion into Central Europe before the anticipated ‘great world conflict’ in five or six years’ time.

 

I would like to return to original topic there. I have a question how revelant or important was US aid to Britain ? US could only sell necessary war materials , raw materails and food due to Cash and Carry Act then after April 1941 Lend Lease Aid. What if Neutrality Act was not reapealed ? Because what I read from Citizens of London written by Lynne Olsen (definetely read it) up until 1942 only %1,5 only British war material demands were send from US by Cash and Carry purchases and then Lend Lease Aid. Most of raw material consumed by British industry and food was actually coming either from Canada or from other Dominions like Australia , New Zealand , South Africa etc....Actually after Lend Lease was finished by Truman in November 1945 Canada helped UK most in sending food and getting 1945-46 winter over. More over according to both Olsen and Richard Overy Lend Lease deliveries even in existing state were quite disorganized and haphazard until June 1941. The reason for that was US industry and transport system was still not geared for total war in 1941 and deliveries to British ports were cancelled or quite late. Things only got better in US organizational end once President Roosevelt send Averell Harriman with full authority in reorganizing Lend Lease shipments , creating necessary programs and infrastructure in US economy for Total War footing.

So "If USA did not help to you would be speaking German" arguement is not real at all. Britain couldn't win the war on its own at all that is sure. They lacked the economic resource , industrial might and manpower to open up a Second Front in France. (actually from British strategy against a Continental dominant foe this strategy had always been same : Find allies , create an alliance , support them and fight on periphery of Europe and overseas until you get a chance to commit your small army) But without British involvement until 1945 (for six years and at cost of ruining British economy and crippling it for decades after) USA would be isolated at other side of Atlantic , still dealing with last ending thores of Great Depression and at the end in odds with a Totalitarian Germanic hegamony in Europe if not a totally Communist Europe under heel of Stalin. And I am not even counting militant Japanese expansion which put USA and Japan at war actually. Given the preference both US public and goverment military administration preffered to go after Japan rather than Germany which disliked but couldn't do anything about. They had less motivation or reasons or means (crossing Atlantic to land directly at France without air support or naval dominance would be impractical at best ) to fight in Europe than to fight against Japanese.

 

I think the disconnect is that Britain couldn't have lost the war either. It's an island, and in the period had a navy far superior to Germany, and an air force that was at least a defensive match. Britain could have remained in permanent stalemate... I'm not sure of the long term economics of an island nation with a Uboat war - but no doubt given that great navy and the radar breakthroughs that GB pioneered they might well have solved that problem on their own.

A more honest question is; could Britain and the Commonwealth have retaken western Europe without the American alliance? And (in my opinion) the answer is "no." It is just as true that the US in that period could not have done it alone either.

 

Aaahhh, there's the question. Well played Kodiak. Britain could have stood alone. After the evacuation in France, who wouldn't bank on the British. That was a colossal victory. And with Hitlers continuous mistakes, I agree Britain holds . I doubt they could have broken out though without the invasion ,compounded by the British might and Germany haphazardly spreading itself too thin. Dunkirk was the turning point in my eyes.

 

Does Lend Lease still happen?

Does the US still supply the Soviet Union?

Without American aid, it's hard to see who wins; the war would drag on for far longer.

I'd place my bets on the Commonwealth. After all, they controlled most of the truly strategic locations around Europe: the UK itself, Gibraltar, and the Suez. (Exception, the Bosphorus) This allows them to dictate when and where.

 

. In my eyes,Dunkirk was no turning point .