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

a reply to: crazyewok

The answer is no. They would neither have survived world war 1.
www.evawaseerst.be...

So many what if's I've enjoyed this thread, I was expecting some circle-jerkle action but clearly you are all acting rather civilized. I think I'm dissapointed.

I honestly don't think the UK would have lasted long if the nazi's invested more into the military bread winners. U-boats, long range weaponry and mechanized infantry. The attacks on convoys alone were becoming more than pain in the arse, that being said was it the Nazi's aim to defeat The UK or just force surrender.

What if's....

Would Hitler have blitzed France if our western alliances were not forcing Poland to be aggresive?

Would war have started if western fears never lead them to affectively try an siege Germany?

Would the British empire survive if the US never propped her up?

All if's and but's. But in my humble opinion without US support the UK would have had to conceave defeat. War repreations would have demanded us to give up our naval assets and therefore actively begin dismantling our empire. Would we be worse of is debatable since the empire was dismantled anyway and the cost of that war is still being paid for financially... Not to mention the loss of life. My biggest question is how much was WWII unavoidable and if it was why wasn't it.

We always hear that WWI and WWII especially was unavoidable. Lies to dedicate the cannon fodder in my opinion.

originally posted by: zandra
a reply to: crazyewok

The answer is no. They would neither have survived world war 1.
www.evawaseerst.be...

World war one?

It was won before the US entered!

The US just made it end in 1918 rather than 1920.

Germany lost when they failed to break the UK blockade.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I will give you that the German army in 1941 was likley the best in the world.

Once russia started bleeding them dry and they started scraping the barrel with the quality of conscripts And hilter dismissed, alienated or executed his best generals I would say is a diffrent matter.

Plus the british army did have short comeings in the beginning. In fact the same short comeings the USA had when they entered. Though I would say we overcame many, hence how we turned the war around in Africa.

And yes Rommel was better than monty.

I would not say monty was incompetent or a hack though. He still did manage to turn the African campaign around.

I think that the UK would have survived without help from the USA just fine, but only because Hitler was basically making mistake after mistake. The Battle of Britain was silly, just blockade the island nation with U boats and the UK probably feels the effects of the siege and agrees to a negotiated peace. Hitler's inability to control his Italian henchman seriously delayed his Soviet Invasion plans. His refusal to use those people that the USSR subjugated to his advantage, plus his obsessive need to seize Russian cities rather than just seize and occupy the oilfields proved that he was probably a moron on top of being a sociopathic racist. In my opinion the UK would have still been standing at the end even without our help because Hitler sucked as a tactician. Now if Hitler would have listened more closely to his advisors perhaps that's a diffrrent story.

originally posted by: Freeborn
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.....

Without the US we would have lost the Falklands war - full stop period and everything in between.

Believe me I don't want to believe it any more than you, and we can all stand here banging our drums and shaking our ra-ra pom-poms for our own countries, but the top and bottom of it is that if the US had not supplied us with the equipment to take back the Falklands then we would have lost.

There is no more to say.

being a good patriotic Brit doesn't make it true, that kind of attitude of "we can do it without the Yanks" just gets people killed, so thank God that those in charge at the time had the good sense to use the help the US could privde to help us gain victory.

A "victory" (if that's what we'd ended up with) with thousands more causalties on either or both sides would have been a hollow and quite meaningless victory indeed.

Without the US's help we would have lost - and I am no fan of the US - but it is a simple FACT.

a reply to: Power_Semi

We'll agree to disagree.

I've stated my opinion without going into too much detail, and you've given yours.
It's not a discussion for this thread.

a reply to: seagull

OH come ON ,the Focke Wulf over the 262, A BOLT ACTION Mauser VS a FG42?
HE was an idiot or he intended to lose as smoke to steal the good stuff.

Of course not. Without the US everyone in the world would die.

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy
Of course not. Without the US everyone in the world would die.

Reasons?

a reply to: seagull

I agree with that.

No way in hell Japan could have survived in a long term fight with the USA even if the USA had been on its own.

Hell if the UK hadnt been occupied with Europe I doubt they could of even survived againt just us.

Picking a fight with the USA and Britain?

They were doomed the moment they bombed pearl habour. It was just a matter of how long Japan could of held out.

originally posted by: Jonjonj

But reducing American importance is a game we can all play, as Brits and Americans are friends, right? It is a drinking game where both get the desired result, leathered and laughing.

Hey thats the point of the thread....a laugh

originally posted by: Baddogma
I'm a USA guy, but have a foot on both sides, that's really one side, as my dad joined the Royal Air Force (in fact, my name is derived from it's initials) at 17 via Canada and flew 25 missions over Fortress Europe in a B-17, then switched over to the U.S. Army Air Force after Pearl Harbor, and flew 25 more ... and obviously lived... and that leaves me with a whole mess of stories and a feeling that picking sides at all (on the Allied side, anyway) is the real fault in the question.

I can say he was very impressed with English resolve and resourcefulness, though.

I can also say it would've been utter hell (likely some mass starvation, though SPAM is only slightly better than starving... along with more cardboard tanks/planes in actual battle, etc) without the U.S. as active players, but England had a smaller, very cohesive population with extreme motivation against the Nazis and some stubborn, smart s.o.b.s ... and might've pulled it off... especially with the USSR mistake...

so 'might've survived without the U.S.'s help,' how's that?

Great reply Not really much to add to that.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: cavtrooper7

At the time of the German invasion of the USSR, Stalin wanted nothing to do with a war with Germany. He'd purged too many Generals, and didn't really trust the ones that were left. So his military hierarchy was in a shambles essentially.

Many of his commanders weren't any better, or worse, then their opposition. Though there were exceptions. Mannheim. Kesselring. Geuderian (sp?). ...and a few others. You'll notice I don't have Rommel on that list? I've always considered him a bit over-rated...not a bad commander by any stretch, but not the greatest thing since sliced bread that he's been all too often treated as.

Actually, as far as his interference with weapons manufacturing goes? Shouldn't have touched that.

Insane? Yeah. I'd go along with that...

I dont know.

Problem with Rommel is in Africa he suffered from the same problem as the UK did in France 1940......# allies.

If the Italians were abit more reliable and he had got abit more support from Germany he would have beaten Monty.

a reply to: crazyewok

If the United States did not implement the Lend-Lease Program, Britain would have suffered more severely. Eventually, Churchill would have lost a vote of confidence and Britain would have joined the Reich on its own terms, as it joined the EU. Heil Hitler and King George!

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: crazyewok

If the United States did not implement the Lend-Lease Program, Britain would have suffered more severely. Eventually, Churchill would have lost a vote of confidence and Britain would have joined the Reich on its own terms, as it joined the EU. Heil Hitler and King George!

Lend lease though was not "aid" or charity.

It was a business transaction.

It was not done out of the goodness of the USA heart.

Lets look at this scenario.

Britain was under a major threat of invasion by Nazi Germany.

We leave the fighting of The Japanese to the U.S.
We bring home all troops stationed in The Far East and Middle East.
We bring home The British Pacific Fleet which included 12 main Aircraft Carries, a host of Escort Carriers, 4 Battleships and numerous Destroyers, Corvettes and a host of other ships. Along with all RAF units fighting in those Theatre's Of War.

With all that added firepower and sea power Hitler would have had a good run for his money.

Let's not forget, Nazi Germany had the luxury of fighting only on mainland Europe and North Africa. They where soon kicked out of Africa.

Britain meanwhile fought all over the globe.

a reply to: crazyewok

Lend lease though was not "aid" or charity.

It was a business transaction.

It was not done out of the goodness of the USA heart.

Agreed, but it alleviated the suffering of the British people. Without it, Churchill might have suffered politically. Nazi Germany did not need to conquer Britain militarily, it could have conquered it politically. After all, the Anglo-Saxon "race" was Aryan, and, like their German brethren, were a warrior people who built an empire over the lesser, inferior races. Surely they should unite against the evil Jewish bankers and racially polluted Americans?

a reply to: DJW001

That actually a pretty cool flag

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: DJW001

That actually a pretty cool flag

Point proven.