Lets settle this! Would the UK have survived WW2 without the USA.

a reply to: Brotherman

Lend-lease with England......

What may seem like a minor point to many, but I assure you it's not......it's the UK, (The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).
England is but one of four constituent parts of the UK.

The UK was still in debt to America from ww1.

We still haven't paid back loans secured during WWI.
The reasons for this are many.....none of which have much to do with the topic under discussion in this thread.

Text

a reply to: crazyewok


The night raids. LOL. Why is it, the Brits ignore that turning point of the "accidental" bombing of Berlin??

Goring had promised no bomb would ever fall on Berlin and promptly changed
the priority targeting of strategic targets into bombing London in retaliation?

( There is almost no way one accidently bombs a city the size of Berlin, blackouts not withstanding, it was perhaps THE brilliant move by the Brits in the entire war.)

As far as the topic of the thread goes, The British army, largely due to it's incompetent generals, bloody well stank!

The list is long and distinguished. The Germans slobber-knocked the British army in France so badly that Hitler let the Brits evacuate the soldiers back to England. Rommel made Monty look like the political hack that he was. Dieppe, now there's a fine example why the U.S. didn't trust British ability to protect sensitive information right through the cold war. Laden with German spies and later Soviet infiltration.

So measuring the 'services', individually:

Navy, yes the Brits were numerically superior. Yet without lend-lease, the Brits would have had to use far more of their bigger assets to defend those convoys thereby levelling the numerical superiority they enjoyed. Without lend-lease, an American largess to an ally, the idea of the Brits winning the overall battle of Britain becomes open to debate.

Air forces? Largely a toss-up. Germany actually had the edge and thanks to Goring's incompetency, allowed Britain to win that defensive battle. By themselves, the Brits could never have prosecuted any significant offensive operation without U.S. participation.

Army? Already covered. Not even close. Germany hands down.

Even Hitler knew Britain was not a factor after he took France and dropped invasion plans. You suggest that non-factor that Britain was would have changed without Germany declaring war on the U.S.? No sir. Tough love here. IF Britain had survived-and that's a big if without the U.S., The British Empire was done. Toast. Kaput.

To the Stalin supporters, There were 55 infantry divisions, 11 armored divisions, Lord knows how many air squadrons all tied up in Europe due to Hitler's declaration of war against the U.S.. If even 2/3s of those had been moved to the eastern front, Stalin would have had his ass handed to him. As it was, Germany came within a hair of winning it anyways.

Without Hitler declaring war on the U.S., Hitler eventually wins on the eastern front and if Herr Hitler is in the mood, goes back and finishes off Britain.

Simple answer to the question? A resounding NO. No U.S.. Sooner or later England's official language becomes German.

Tough love. Honest answer.

a reply to: uncommitted

.....we should remember that the only thing all countries gave that didn't come with a bill was the lives of their men, women and children - combatants and civilians - who never got to see the end of the war. That goes for both the Allies and Axis sides.

Probably the truest and wisest words in this whole thread.

The tragic thing is that most of the gains and advances that resulted from their collective sacrifices are being eroded away.



www.plyrics.com...

a reply to: uncommitted
I don't see this as much of a debate as we are speculating an alternate history. The UK did ask and solicite American help. The fact they asked for help means they also knew they couldn't do it on their own, the UK needed desperately help from America and Russia. So there are no wrong answers here May as well ask "would Hitler have won if America supported Germany?" I mean the OP proposes an equally absurd question, America was bound to join the war effort one way or the other so without the USA why not say they helped the Germans hypothetically?

a reply to: Freeborn
I heavily disagree as it is very relevant due to the fact the standing with the UK and support from America had everything to due with debt. Its simple, America had to change its laws to support the UK as its original law does not allow to extend credit to in debted nations alot almost exactly like the UK at the time. American involvement required a lot of begging, bargaining, and manipulation to have worked.

a reply to: nwtrucker


Yes Germany lost the war because it had to keep a fraction of its strength in western Europe, all of which was totally down to the threat of the all mighty US (who hand't even began ramping up troop numbers in the UK until after the significant battles of the eastern front).

The only part of the War when extra resources from the western front may have made a significant difference was at the Battle for Moscow and the threat then was definitely not from the US.

Unless you think Hitler was worried about the US somehow tele-porting its entire army (all 300,000 or so in 1941) across the Atlantic.

I'm English and to answer your question:

Would the UK have survived WW2 without the US - no way, unless Russia had become involved way earlier and been on side with the UK - but then we'd probably have been lost to Russia.

Even more recent - Would the UK have won the Falklands conflict without the help of the US - absolutely no way.

Even more pertinent question - considering the problems around the world now and in the intervening years, and the mess that Europe is in - Would the US (in it's own self interests) have been better off allowing Hitler to win by beating the UK, all of Europe, and Russia, and then just signing trade etc agreements with Germany instead?

Might sound horrific but politicians are politicians - the welfare of the people they represent is very low down the list of priorities - self interests come far higher up the chain of thought.

a reply to: Brotherman

An interesting article on UK loans and debts to the USA resulting from both WWI and WWII.

news.bbc.co.uk...

.... American involvement required a lot of begging, bargaining, and manipulation to have worked

USA involvement in WWI came down to one thing and one thing only - Germany's declaration of war against the USA.

If that had not happened then the USA would have continued to be neutral.

Yes, Roosevelt and many others in government wanted to help the UK and its Allies but public opinion was still dead set against getting involved in another war.
The US government helped the UK with supplies and loans etc - at favourable rates, but many American citizens were making enormous amounts of money supllying both Allied and Axis governments, Prescott Bush and Henry Ford are two that spring immediately to mind.

a reply to: ScepticScot


Good point. It does fall back to my point that Germany almost won anyways. Yes, prior to U.S. involvement.


The Soviets did benefit from U.S. supplies and equipment- not saying it was a deciding factor- much like lend-lease was before U.S. entry
.

After the setbacks in Moscow and Stalingrad, those 'fraction' you refer to- a rather large fraction, lol- would have been utilized and certainly the balance swings in Germany's favor if there was no fear of a second front. I'd say there was no question that keeping those divisions in the west slowed, drastically, D-day.

Back to my hypothetical point. No U.S. and I seriously doubt, at least eventually, that Britain survives.

a reply to: Power_Semi

Even more recent - Would the UK have won the Falklands conflict without the help of the US - absolutely no way.

I think one nuclear armed submarine stationed just off Buenos Aires could have sorted the matter quite quickly.

Yet again, US help made it easier....but the result would have been the same if they hadn't....just probably with more unnecessary casualties on both sides.

It would be a draw. Here's why.

The English would be too busy standing in queues.
The Welsh would be doing stuff to sheep.
The Scottish would be too busy chasing haggis.
The Irish would be too busy drinking Guinness.
The Germans would be too busy eating sausages.






(Please note: This is not serious and just a bit of fun to alleviate the more serious side of the thread)

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Power_Semi

Even more recent - Would the UK have won the Falklands conflict without the help of the US - absolutely no way.

I think one nuclear armed submarine stationed just off Buenos Aires could have sorted the matter quite quickly.

Yet again, US help made it easier....but the result would have been the same if they hadn't....just probably with more unnecessary casualties on both sides.

No one is going to be stupid enough to fire nukes - it was more the "loaning" of ship to air missiles, and air to air missiles that sorted the Falklands for us.

Thatcher told the French if they didn't give us the disarm codes for the exocet then we'd nuke BA, but it was clearly a bluff, we'd never have done it - even if they did deserve it.

originally posted by: nwtrucker


As far as the topic of the thread goes, The British army, largely due to it's incompetent generals, bloody well stank!

Then the the USA army stank to as Equipment was on par and in fact worse at the start. And its troops suffered the same casualty rates/ victory’s and defeats.

It was the British that had to come to the rescue of the USA at Kasserine pass.

It was the British and Canadian that carried the beaches at D-day forcing the Germans to withdraw from the catastrophic cock up at Omaha Beach.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

The list is long and distinguished. The Germans slobber-knocked the British army in France so badly that Hitler let the Brits evacuate the soldiers back to England.

That was not the British fault! The French Army collapsed leaving the British Expeditionary force (It was not meant to act as a stand alone army but support unit for the French) to face the war on its own. Even the USA in that situation would have been forced to withdraw! The Germans had THREE MILLION troops against the British Hundred Thousand!
Patton on Meth infused with the ghosts of George Washington and General Grant could not have beat those odds!

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Rommel made Monty look like the political hack that he was

Bull #.
Rommel got his arse kicked in Egypt and was in withdrawal before the USA turned up.

Yes the UK suffered defeats in Africa but we turned that around.
Same as the USA suffered defeats in the pacific but turned that around.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

. Dieppe, now there's a fine example why the U.S. didn't trust British ability to protect sensitive information right through the cold war. Laden with German spies and later Soviet infiltration.

I will give you Dieppe.

But mistakes happen in war. The USA made a number of blunders too.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Navy, yes the Brits were numerically superior. Yet without lend-lease, the Brits would have had to use far more of their bigger assets to defend those convoys thereby levelling the numerical superiority they enjoyed. Without lend-lease, an American largess to an ally, the idea of the Brits winning the overall battle of Britain becomes open to debate.

You did not "give" us those ships and it was not charity.
It was a trade transactions.

Business.
I won’t thank the USA for simple mutual trade any more than I expect you to thank Saudi Arabia for giving you oil or China the computer your typing on.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Air forces? Largely a toss-up. Germany actually had the edge and thanks to Goring's incompetency, allowed Britain to win that defensive battle. By themselves, the Brits could never have prosecuted any significant offensive operation without U.S. participation.

Maybe maybe not. Not really the topic here though. Only if the UK could have survived.

originally posted by: Brotherman
The UK did ask and solicite American help. The fact they asked for help means they also knew they couldn't do it on their own,

Bush Asked the UK for help in Iraq. Does that mean the USA could not have beat Sadams Army without the British?

No the USA could of.

Its just prudent to ask for help in war as it spreads the burdon and makes victory more certain.

a reply to: crazyewok

The primary drive for the need of UK was to make the invasion appear justified and not the U.S. Going rogue. They needed help manipulating the world and Blair was all too happy.

Lets settle this! Would the UK have survived WW2 without the USA.

Maybe... maybe not.

First, Nazi Germany may well have defeated the Soviet Union in the long term had the US not sent them so many Studebaker trucks that were then connected to their thousands of artillery pieces that then blew the nazis to hell.

Second, Nazi Germany may well have defeated the Soviet Union in the long term had the US not sent them so many P-39 Bell Airacobras that cleaned the skies of Stukas and He-111s.

Now then, had the Soviet Union fallen, most ALL of Germany's armed forces would have been redirected upon England. In fact, in this scenario, there was nothing left except England w/out US fighters and bombers and tanks and soldiers and warships.

Of course, this is all just assembling history in search of alternatives had this or that not happened.

Soooo... please accept the above as a, In My Ever So Humble Opinion, reply

...

a reply to: Power_Semi


All for another thread methinks, but......

No one is going to be stupid enough to fire nukes -

It'd be a hell of a bluff to call.

it was more the "loaning" of ship to air missiles, and air to air missiles that sorted the Falklands for us.

There's no question of whether 'we' would have won or not, just more of a question of when and how many more people, from both sides would have had to die over such an unnecessary issue.

Fault's lie with both sides and its sad to see that some people seem to continually drag the whole matter up again and again just as an opportunity to further their own agenda's.

As I said, a topic for another time and place.

Thatcher told the French if they didn't give us the disarm codes for the exocet then we'd nuke BA,

I truly despised Thatcher with a passion, but that's one hell of a story and shows she had balls bigger than most men!

- even if they did deserve it.

Sure, the Argentinian Junta and the Argie elite deserved it, but the ordinary Argentinian was just being used and manipulated the same as most of us.....

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Brotherman
The UK did ask and solicite American help. The fact they asked for help means they also knew they couldn't do it on their own,

Bush Asked the UK for help in Iraq. Does that mean the USA could not have beat Sadams Army without the British?

No the USA could of.

Its just prudent to ask for help in war as it spreads the burdon and makes victory more certain.

Apples and oranges my friend.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Brotherman

An interesting article on UK loans and debts to the USA resulting from both WWI and WWII.

news.bbc.co.uk...

.... American involvement required a lot of begging, bargaining, and manipulation to have worked

USA involvement in WWI came down to one thing and one thing only - Germany's declaration of war against the USA.

If that had not happened then the USA would have continued to be neutral.

Yes, Roosevelt and many others in government wanted to help the UK and its Allies but public opinion was still dead set against getting involved in another war.
The US government helped the UK with supplies and loans etc - at favourable rates, but many American citizens were making enormous amounts of money supllying both Allied and Axis governments, Prescott Bush and Henry Ford are two that spring immediately to mind.

I
I agree with you. I once seen something that suggested that Auschwitz was build by almost all American products and in the beginning of the war the Nazis were invading Poland driving Fords. Business is business I suppose.

a reply to: crazyewok


Rommel kicked the crap out of Monty and Co. long before U.S. involvement. less men, less tanks way less air support.

Rommel was down to a 1-10 ratio across the boards and the German army codes were cracked. From El Alamein on, every move the German army made was known in advance. None of this contradicts the fact that the German army
was superior to the British Army.(Bring the U.S. Army into the argument has nothing to do with my point of comparing English to German services, nice try.)

Prior to El Alamein, the brits were slobber-knocked...time after time after time. Leadership? Not even close...


As far as French responsibility goes, history shows that the German attacking force was inferior to even the French. It was the two 'ghost divisions' that turned the tide in Germany's favor, one led by Rommel, the other by Guderian. Two Germans that to this day are seen as visionaries when it comes to both strategic and tactical innovators.

I don't see any British...or American for that matter, held in such regard. To this day, U.S. armor units have Rommel's picture in their tanks...not Patton..

Which makes my point of the lousy British command and, therefore a huge advantage to the German army.