USA won World War Two and saved England ?

Since it is a rather transparent fallacy I don't see why it shouldn't be forgotten. Of course it's another rather classic pointer as to how out of touch some people are with reality so I guess it does have some merit.

I'm willing to give you that one.

That's far from clear. Certainly Britains resistence helped but how much is an open question as is the impact of the losses in the BoB on the eastern front.

I'd like to see some sources for this.

 

Yes, but... With a separate peace, the US would have had no reason to enter the European theater so it becomes a moot point. Without England in the game, Germany would have had no reason to declare war on the US since no lend lease ships would have been supplying England. We'd have just gone to war with Japan.

You're right though, that a US without a British/Commonwealth partnership would have been in the same boat as the UK at war without the US. It was the partnership that made the allies an effective player. The Soviets though, with its production moved back to the Urals and vast resources could win without a partnership. It would have just taken much longer.

 

US escort fighters did too

 

Hold on a minute; of the 195,700 Allied naval personnel who took part the breakdown was;
52,889 US
112,824 British
4988 from other Allied countries.
http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/d-day/d-day-and-the-battle-of-normandy-your-questions-answered#whichtroop

A rough breakdown:
Seven Battleships (Four British, three US)
Five heavy cruisers (three US, two British)
Seventeen British, two Free French and one Polish light cruisers.
135 Destroyers and escorts (85 British & Dominion, 39 US, 7 Free French, 7 other Allies)
508 other warships (362 British, 154 US, 2 other Allied)
There were other British forces involved in minesweeping/protection etc-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Allied_warships_in_the_Normandy_landings

The British & Commonwealth navies were just a tad less than outnumbered by the USN.

 

I think that when you change a component of history, then all bets are off for future outcomes.
And removing the US from the game in Europe is a major change. Heck, maybe Adolf wouldn't have stabbed Stalin in the back and settled for Lebensraum in France, who knows? (And yes, I know he hated communists, but he was also a looney so there's no predicating)

Edit: When I removed US from the game, I also meant no material assstance in 40 or 41 either.

 

Yes, but it is troops on the ground that won the war. The US had the troops and the industrial capacity... Yet, it is also true that by 1944 the British were the experienced partner and that experience shaped US military doctrine. It is hard to imagine either the US or Britain marching to the Elbe without the other.

 

Well just based on that they would have had to give up at least one of the invasion beaches. Of course would they have had the troops for even that. But without the USN and US made ships a lot of the British ships couldn't have participated in the invasion either as they would have been needed for convoy escort duties then there's the cargo and troop ships. I don't know what portion were US made but seem to recall that one of the things that held up the invasion until the spring of 44 was lack of US made landing craft. The impact of the US daylight bombing campaign dissapearing would have meant that the invasion convoys probably would have needed more escorts as well.

On the otherhand the British might have invade Greece or Yogoslavia instead. If done at the correct time it might have unhinged the German defence in the Southern Balkans. Not sure how happy the Soviets would have been though.

On the otherhand if the US had just given more equipment to the British and they had been willing to recurit heavier in India they might not have needed US personel. Probably still wouldn't see a June 44 invasion though.

 

I think I'm missing something. Germany attacked the Soviet Union before the US entered the war. So what is this aluding to?

 

Sorry, my edit and your post crossed each other in the mail. I knew that would be pounced on.

 

OK, that makes some sense. Indeed one could point to FDR's "shoot on sight" order as effectively being a declaration of war. It certainly didn't improve relations with Germany. On the other hand I would be inclined to think he would view this as giving him a freer hand in the East although it may also have taken some of the pressure off.

 

I posted a few links. That one was about him in general wanting to take on the Soviets directly after WWII

 

Search Patton and Bavaria after WWII, fighting the Soviets, SS, you will find it, and check the other 2 links I posted. One is from a German article translated to English.

 

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/research/westernfoundation.html

He actually told the idea to a fellow American Military Governor in Germany. Read this.

 

I looked at that link. If it gives any sources, I don't see them. Looks silly to me, honestly. The Third Army vets would probably have killed them or at least beat the crap out of them. Come on now

...General Patton was dreaming of rearming a couple of Waffen SS divisions to incorporate them into his US Third Army "and lead them against the Reds". Patton had put this plan quite seriously to General Joseph T. McNarney, deputy US military governor in Germany, who had relayed Marshall Zhukov's complaint that the Third Army was too slow in disbanding and confining German units in its Bavarian sector. "What do you think those ****** bolshies think?" said Patton. "We're going to have to fight them sooner or later. Why not now while our army is intact and we can kick the Red Army back into Russia? We can do it with my Germans..."

 

General McNarney reported that to his superiors, which got Patton fired. Like I said, I read what I said, I'm not making it up. Not saying I believe everything but I do believe Patton had different views as he was on record several times saying how we mistreated treated Germany after the war, defeated the wrong enemy, etc.

 

Dave55,

you missed the sentence

The actual "transcript" of the call varies from source to source. This phone call is also quoted in Ladislas Farago's "The Last Days of Patton", and I believe, in Robert K. Wilcox's "Target: Patton"(more "historical fiction" or semi-fiction, than non-fiction). Also, SS divisions is only one interpretation, others are Panzer Divisions or just simply German Divisions(again varies according to source). Not to mention that Patton did not have the ways or means to rearm ANY German divisions. I would also suspect that all Allied soldiers would have mutinied had they been ordered to attack the Russians, with or without the Germans, just as the were expecting to return home to their families. Which would leave just Patton and possibly, I expect that outside of a select few as they too had had enough of war, his Germans

 

No doubt Patton had racists views (though he was pragmatic enough to form All Afro American fighting units when he needed ) actually A LOT OF people from US had same outlook in race or racial relations in that era (a shocking perspective from 21st Century but norm at 1940'ies ) it is just because of his celebrity status and his outspoken loud bombastic style to say them in his diary and sometimes in front of press brings that most in highlight. Patton also had sympathy for Nazis towards end of war and had an immense hostility against Russians and Communism though how much of that was sincere or just a showmanship and a desire for more war is a matter of debate. No doubt he employed some ex Nazi Party members for his post war military govermentship in Baveria and admired Waffen SS and its fighting qualities a lot.

Still let's not overblow this. Patton was just one army commander. A very very successful one no doubt and had an immense Public Relations support but still just one army commander. That's it. He was not commanding an army group like Clark , Bradley or Montgomery and even army group commanders had no say in political decisions. Hell even Ike had to bow or consider what politicians wish. He had no authority to make foreign policy himself. When Eisenhower dismissed Patton in September 1945 from Third Army no one incuding Patton himself made much fuss about it. War was over. Wartime heroics were old news and Patton was emberrasing both himself and Ike with his press releases. After his dismissal there was not much after effects at all. He did not seek political power or created serious crisis with East like MacArthur did later in Korea. Rather sad actually. He was a man of war and peace just left him as an old man with static views about world constantly changing If he died in last day of war in Europe he would be glad probably.

 

I always thought of Patton as a modern era Custer, a lot more guts (and ego) than brains, though probably lacking Custer's political ambitions. His luck was that others provided solid infrastrucure and logistics so all he needed to do was provide the "drive", which IMO was all he was good for, and which the WW2 US Army badly needed if they wanted to end the war in Europe before the soviets reached the Atlantic coast.
IMHO his negotiartion skills and understanding of complex issues were close to zero, and after the war that was what was required not "drive", so he he ended up treated as a loose cannon, which is excactly what he was.

 

Let's get back to the initial question of this thread.

Historically, there isn't even a hint that Eisenhower wanted to enter the war. Not a word. Quite the contrary: after Hitler attacked Russia, Roosevelt wanted just to finance other people’s war, which itself wasn't wrong at all. In 1941 only a negligible fraction of British resources originated from L&L. Therefore it is utter exaggeration to say that 'USA won World War Two and saved England'. The fragment of the cited article in the opening post is absolutely accurate. Of course it is fair to say that the USA played significant role in the WWII.

 

US entering the war sealed the fate of Nazi Germany in short term and shortened the war (limited the remainder of figting to 3-4 years otherwise Red Army's overwhelming German defense on Eastern Front would be much more bloody, time consuming affair and might have lead a stemelate ) but without L&L (actually there was quite an opposion to both L&L and even Cash&Carry Act in US Congress and from America First Comittee ) British goverment could always make a negotiated peace (Hitler wanted to take British out of war before Barbarossa started and intended to be lenient to British Empire he admired ) deposing Churchill's wartime coalition in 1940-41 period. In fact without Cash and Carry and Lend Lease that might have happened easily after defeat of British arms in Balkans during April-May 1941 and a new British goverment isolated like USA could have tried to reinforce Malaya and Singapore instead. No harm done. Japan might have give up attacking Pearl Harbour and Malaya (without UK joining US led oil embergo and reinforcing its Far East defences ) in that case and instead could assault directly to defenseless Dutch East Indies (which had what Japan needed most : oil ) and French Indo China instead. USA isolated , UK would be free but probably under heavy German fascist pressure to accomodate German foreign policy and Nazi "New Order" and Third Reich would reign longer than intended on Europe. Actually I would go one step further : UK getting out of fight would lead more collaboration of occupied Europe with Third Reich and might lead Japan attacking Siberia in close future like in 1942.

All of these are speculation though and I dislike playing "What If ?" There are too many factors in history especially something complex like World War II that influences one another , triggers unintended reactions with one another.