It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Ohanka

Actually, it was also USSR troops which had the Japanese army on their balls. Japan wanted to surrender and keep its ruler, but the dumbassTruman insisted on a complete surrender.
Because he was bullied while growing up he got a kick out of playing the strong man.


edit on 30-3-2016 by Peeple because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: crazyewok

So you don't think that Germany wouldn't have been able to adapt to this?


Well they didn't.

Not sure what they could have done?

There air force was beaten and there their Navy in no way capable of taking on the Royal Navy anymore than the British navy today could take on the US Navy.


You know. If you guys were sitting so pretty, why were you guys turtling in your island up until America entered the war? You make it sound like the British had everything under control and I don't think that is the case.

I don't necessarily think that y'all were saved by any one country, but you cannot deny that the heat was on and America's entry certainly took a lot of that heat off of you guys. Though, even with America in the war, Germany was still winning on almost all fronts for a good while (up until D-Day).


They could have tried to out build the UK in ships but the UK was so vastly ahead. It would only have been possible if they could have secured the resources in Africa and Russia to fuel there industry.


Which they were working on doing (and were denied by the Americans).


Stalingrad 1942.
El Alamein 1942
Kursk 1943

Germany was already getting its arse handed to it by D-Day.

Eh... If you say so. Though I'm sure the necessity of D-Day said otherwise.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t



You know. If you guys were sitting so pretty, why were you guys turtling in your island up until America entered the war? You make it sound like the British had everything under control and I don't think that is the case.

?

Never said we were sitting pretty.
The heat was on and we were at risk.

Just the situation was not hopeless.

Plus we are not Turtling!
We were fighting in Africa and the far east (remember we had the blasted Japanese to fight too!).


originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I don't necessarily think that y'all were saved by any one country, but you cannot deny that the heat was on and America's entry certainly took a lot of that heat off of you guys. Though, even with America in the war, Germany was still winning on almost all fronts for a good while (up until D-Day).
.


Have to disagree.

Germany had clearly lost in 1943 if not in 42 when it was clear there Invasion of Russia had stalled. The Germans only hope was tp get a quick victory over Russia. A war of attrition with them was always going to end badly.


originally posted by: Krazysh0t
[Which they were working on doing (and were denied by the Americans).


By the time you Americans showed up Britain had done most of the heavy fighting in Africa.
Rommel was being pushed back after his defeats in Egypt. The USA just turned his slow defeat into a route.
And no offence the British had to hold your hands thoughout that theatre as you troop were inexperienced, you command structure untested and you equipment at that stage near worthless (yes later it was some of the best but at the start your equipment was god awful). Kasserine pass was embarrassing disaster. That was your first Solo gig and you blew that and the Brits had to come to pick the pieces up. Not the USA fault as again your troops were new and equipment untested.
But it was not until sicily and Italy the USA came into its own as a fighting force and started pulling its weight.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: crazyewok

So you don't think that Germany wouldn't have been able to adapt to this?


Well they didn't.

Not sure what they could have done?

There air force was beaten and there their Navy in no way capable of taking on the Royal Navy anymore than the British navy today could take on the US Navy.


You know. If you guys were sitting so pretty, why were you guys turtling in your island up until America entered the war? You make it sound like the British had everything under control and I don't think that is the case.

I don't necessarily think that y'all were saved by any one country, but you cannot deny that the heat was on and America's entry certainly took a lot of that heat off of you guys. Though, even with America in the war, Germany was still winning on almost all fronts for a good while (up until D-Day).


They could have tried to out build the UK in ships but the UK was so vastly ahead. It would only have been possible if they could have secured the resources in Africa and Russia to fuel there industry.


Which they were working on doing (and were denied by the Americans).


Stalingrad 1942.
El Alamein 1942
Kursk 1943

Germany was already getting its arse handed to it by D-Day.

Eh... If you say so. Though I'm sure the necessity of D-Day said otherwise.


What makes you think d-day was necessary?

Actually it probably was necessary but not to defeat Germany, but to stop France/Belgium/etc being part of the Soviet Union.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: crazyewok

You have forgotten the one who really defeated Hitler: Stalin.


Without the US Lend Lease program, Stalin wouldn't have been able to get his forces out of Russia to help out.


Overly focusing on the lend lease program is typical in the West, despite the minor impact it had on the Eastern Front.

The Soviets did not help out in Europe. They won the war in that theatre. By the time of the Allied landing on D-Day, the Wehrmacht was for all intents and purposes defeated. It had been since Kursk and arguably Stalingrad. The Nazi leadership was merely delaying the inevitable.

The Western Allies main contributions against Germany were in the Africa campaign and the Mediterranean (Italy).


It was far more vital than you give it credit for. It would have been impossible for the Red Army to move the masses of troops and supplies on the primitive roads to the front lines without the Studebaker trucks, which also served as the launching pads for their rocket artillery. That's on top of the food and other supplies it provided the Soviets.


The Soviets typically did not use roads as their primary lines of communication. The railroad network was far more important to the Soviet Army than the road network.

Incidentally this remained true until the end of the Cold War. Securing the rail hubs of Western Europe was a much higher priority to the wartime Stavka than control of the road system.

While lend-lease aid did have an impact on the Eastern Front, it was not as large as made out to be. You only have to look at the numbers. It certainly didn't "Save" the Soviets.

Hitler's general stupidity and incompetence pretty much singlehandedly lost them the Eastern Front due to ridiculous strategic planning. Allowing the Soviets time to rebuild the damage it had done to it's Army in the 1930s.
edit on -050011am3kam by Ohanka because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

This is why I don't get involved in the "US saved the world in WWII" conversations. There was too much going on with simplistic statements like that.
edit on 30-3-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013
a reply to: crazyewok

Settle this?
Unless you have the capability to go back in time and deliberately control events to create a new scenario, there is no why in hell this could ever be "settled".

There are a billion and one possible scenarios.
This is foolish.


O loosen up and have some fun.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Eh... If you say so. Though I'm sure the necessity of D-Day said otherwise.

The necessity of D-Day is still argued, so I don't really know if it was necessary or not, in the grand scheme of things.

As many historians have pointed out, a lack of trust between the Allies made D-Day more necessary (at the actual time) than was likely warranted, but, what can you do? Not like we can go back and change it.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: peck420

Good point. I hadn't thought of that.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I actually think the UK would have survived..

the german airforce was in dire straits..the german navy had no shot at beating the british in a head to head fight.

The only shot germany had was right after Dunkirk IMO, struck while the iron was hot, before the Limeys had a chance to regroup and train up those that were left.

They elected to try and establish air superiority and when that failed they were done.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
It was a joint effort.

The UK defiantly gave Nazi Germany the middle finger no mater how much they were bombed.

The US got involved and was able to churn out goods and men that Hitler knew would eventually overwhelm them.

The Russians did as they always do: let enemy forces come in further and further, and let mother nature bend them over.

In the end: the Allies put up a good fight and ended WW2.

Over 70's later, people who never fought in that war, nor had to suffer from it are on a internet forum fighting about who needed help or not.

Your grand parents and great grand parents would be slapping all of you upside your heads for disrespecting the mutual partnership we all had to stomp out a rather evil force.

All the allies did a wonderful job of fighting, surviving and fighting back. No one country was more important than another, not one country fought more than another. Each had their own roles to play, and each did very well in the end.

Anything else is just a mockery of what happened to all those souls lost in that war. Remember that.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: crazyewok

I actually think the UK would have survived..

the german airforce was in dire straits..the german navy had no shot at beating the british in a head to head fight.

The only shot germany had was right after Dunkirk IMO, struck while the iron was hot, before the Limeys had a chance to regroup and train up those that were left.

They elected to try and establish air superiority and when that failed they were done.


There isn't a possibility of German invasion of the UK. There is no way they could wrestle naval supremacy from the Royal Navy.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

The automatic Yank response is "Without us, you'd have been screwed, blued, and tatoo'd..." Yadda, yadda, yadda.

The only time the Germans ever had a chance to invade successfully was right after Dunkirk. In the immediate aftermath things were, shall we say, unsettled. They might, only might, have been able to force the Channel if they'd been willing to pay the price.

But once things had settled, and organized? Nope. It would have been a disaster for them. So they tried bombing a/k/a the Battle of Britain, and well, we all know how that ended.

Then of course, Hitler had his stroke of genius and attacked the Bear of the East... Oooooops. Millions of dead later, so is he.

Had he not attacked east, and concentrated upon starving England out with a u-boat campaign? He might have forced an armistice. Though I do wonder if Roosevelt would have allowed that? What ever Roosevelt was, he could see ahead a bit...

Yes, England would have survived. I don't think they'd have "won", exactly...but they wouldn't have "lost" in the sense of Panzers rolling through Piccadilly.

Just one Yanks opinion.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Ohanka

I am just referring to a very small window after Dunkirk, while confusion reigned supreme.. the Germans let the brits regroup and at that point they had zero shot at conquering the UK.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Great reply.

I agree.

I don't think the UK could have "won" WW2 at all on its own. Just survived.
Worst would have been a forced armistice. In fact I think the Germans did offer us on just after the battle of Britain and we told them to take a hike! Fact is I don't think Hitler ever wanted to go to war with the UK in the first place.

As for Russia? I can see Hitler's reasoning. To some extent. He needed those resources or the UK could have starved Germany. If he could have taken Russia and linked up with the army in Africa through the ME he would have made any Royal navy attempt to blockade Gemany pointless.

IF and that is a big IF Germany had managed that then there Industry could have out produced the UK's by a vast margin.


edit on 30-3-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
It was a joint effort.

The UK defiantly gave Nazi Germany the middle finger no mater how much they were bombed.

The US got involved and was able to churn out goods and men that Hitler knew would eventually overwhelm them.

The Russians did as they always do: let enemy forces come in further and further, and let mother nature bend them over.

In the end: the Allies put up a good fight and ended WW2.

Over 70's later, people who never fought in that war, nor had to suffer from it are on a internet forum fighting about who needed help or not.

Your grand parents and great grand parents would be slapping all of you upside your heads for disrespecting the mutual partnership we all had to stomp out a rather evil force.

All the allies did a wonderful job of fighting, surviving and fighting back. No one country was more important than another, not one country fought more than another. Each had their own roles to play, and each did very well in the end.

Anything else is just a mockery of what happened to all those souls lost in that war. Remember that.


Think you missed the point of the thread.

This isn't about who was more important.

Or who "won" WW2 or who had a bigger role.

That I agree was a mutual joint effort.


This is just about the age old comment of "if the USA had to got involved the UK would be speaking German" topic



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   

edit on 3032016 by Qwerm because: misinformation.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok
I think the question needs to be asked.

Would Germany have continued with all of her offensives, if the US had not entered the war? Or would she have consolidated her gains (essentially continental Europe) before making another move?

As pointed earlier, as much as Russia was a meat grinder for Germany, she was largely incapable of striking back without lend-lease. The ME was really a non-issue, and Africa would have been very hard to save via Britain and the Commonwealth.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

America, John Wayne, Jesus, and aliens all came together to save the UK.

How long has your empire been around?

I'm thinking 5, maybe 10 years. Maybe 12 years, tops.

Face it, you'd be eating sauerkraut , and heavy cream desserts if it weren't for AMERICA!

HA!




posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Thing is, he could have got those resources via trade. Stalin wanted nothing to do with a war with Germany, as he had an expansionist Japan making angry faces at him in the Eastern Soviet Union. He didn't need another enemy on another front... Not to mention the Sovs and Nazis had an alliance of sorts, one that had been very beneficial to that point.

With a little forethought, the ME might have seen the Russians and Germans taking all that oil, with England being able to do a whole lot of nothing to stop it...

I hesitate to say that it was his bigotry that lead to the destruction of the Thousand Year Reich...but it sure as hell played a roll.

Easy enough to see it seventy years down the pike...but it seems so obvious, doesn't it? There was a chance that even a loose alliance of Soviet/Nazi forces could have conquered the ME. Not sure what, if anything, the Commonwealth could have done to stop it.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join