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: 7
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I think they could have survived. BUT the UK would have been bombed into the stone age. A land invasion probably would have happened, and an insurgency would have been successful against the Axis.

That said, Germany would have run out of steam eventually. They were not ready to HOLD the world, only throw it into hell.

If the UK did not get its supplies from the US, the land invasion probably would have happened. Aircraft need parts, ammo, and fuel. The royal air force were freaking angels in tin wings though.

IMO, the best pilots in Europe on par with their american counterparts in the pacific. Maybe better.

The UK made the European theater winnable.

Without the UK the US would have won in the pacific and lost in Europe.
Then we would have lost our hold in the pacific and had our own land invasion 2 years after Europe fell in its entirety.

We still lag behind UK intelligence. That is a simple truth. European intelligence was really the factor that gave us the war. European intelligence WAS the UK. They taught the rest of us how to run an intelligence war and an intelligence service.


WW2 was going to the allies one way or the other. Without the allied coalition we all would be in the stone age now.

The UK needed the US as much as the US needed the UK.

We could have stood alone. Both of us. BUT we would have been beaten to a pulp.


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




posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Without Britain, the US wouldn't have even tried to do anything in Europe, unless somehow, Franco's Spain had become less than enamored of the Axis powers, which given the love fest between Franco and Hitler, seems unlikely. There was simply no where for them to go to.

Maybe Italy if Mussolini had lost enough prestige to enable an overthrow...? But who knows when, or if, that would have happened. 'cause everyone loves a winner.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: crazyewok


I read the OP, maybe you should read a history book. By the time the US chose to open a 2nd front, Hitler had already almost lost his capitol. Not exactly heroic to wait till all the soldiers are 12 year old boys.



You might also read YOUR history books.

The US outfitted the UK with armaments before Japan. Without this equipment, the UK would likely have been throwing rocks.

Not to mention... The US was told to attack any subs that caused a problem with any of our ships. The US and Germany was fighting an undeclared war before we went into the scuffle because of Japan.





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



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Umm dude... I suggest you go read some more if you think the quality of german soldiers were inferior to the allies...



I stand by what I said. When it came down to it the Germans weren't as hard as the allied forces. They lost. Germans have a bad habit of losing wars against the allies in case you hadn't read the right books. They always lose


A German couldn't go without his toothbrush. The Russians were of the Earth, they could live without their toothbrush


The only thing German forces were good at was inhumane activities extending to mass mureder against unarmed and defeceless civilian populations. This being after they took out small defenceless countries on the offensive. As soon as they came up against any of the big three they collapsed and lost very time.

Britain defeated the Germans in the air and at sea. Britain also defeated the Huns in North Africa and on into Italy with the Yanks.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Franco was not loyal to Germany. He was practically ordered to send troops and arms to help the Axis and he kind of played dumb and told them all to go to hell.

There were some forces sent to Russia, and they were very successful. BUT Spain was still licking its wounds after being the testing bed for Axis war technology and tactics. Franco supported Hitler only politically since he knew that after France his ass was grass.

The US could not have even won in the pacific I think. Without cracking the various naval codes and without the advances of British radar systems, we would have faired poorly against the massive numbers of Japanese fighters and bombers.

We killed aircraft carriers with these advancements. Remember the Enterprise was for a time our ONLY carrier there, and we sent japans fleet to hell like it was a 70s arcade game. That was only possible thanks to knowing where to hit and where not to be. We got allot of help from British intelligence and their efforts in technological advancements they gifted us.


In Europe, we would have had our asses handed to us for the same reason. The UK helped get rid of spies since we were highly infiltrated and didnt know it. If we would have trusted them with more we probably could have stopped the soviet union from getting the Manhattan project from us.

We were the brawn in massive numbers, they were the brains in prolific ways.

We are both smart and tough, though at this point in history, we were more pronounced in what necessity made us.


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



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Very few have head of " Operation Bagration " launced by The Soviet Union a few weeks after D Day.

This oporation dwarfed D Day in it's size and results. It resulted in The Nazi's biggest defeat of the whole war.

It took out The Germans Army Group Centre's Fourth Army, Third Panzer Army and Ninth Army.




The operation resulted in the almost complete destruction of an entire German army group, with the loss of Army Group Centre's Fourth Army, Third Panzer Army and Ninth Army. It is considered the most calamitous defeat experienced by the German armed forces during the Second World War.[17][18] By the end of the operation most of the western Soviet Union had been liberated and the Red Army had achieved footholds in Romania and Poland. German losses eventually numbered well over half a million men killed or wounded, even higher than the toll at Verdun in 1916


en.wikipedia.org...

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



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: crazyewok

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


My own opinion.....

Those who orchestrated the whole war realised the time had come where they were destroying their assets to a point almost beyond recovery and future profit. They had achieved the evolution in technology and debt to their satisfaction, discovered their bright scientists and willing followers, shook hands, executed the next step in the plan and moved along.

The war ended UPON INSTRUCTION and AS PLANNED, the assets were divided (resourses, personnel, technology etc) and their agenda continued COVERTLY and still does.

Big wars like WWI + WWII etc are planned over cigars and alcohol by parasitic and cowardly elite vermin behind the scenes that give the orders and never fear for their lives....they still do and still live opulent lives in security imo.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Not loyal, no. In that, you are right. He was, however, something of a fanboi, though many Spaniards, dare I say most, weren't. Which is why, I think, Spain remained neutral, he knew/suspected, IMHO, that an alliance with Germany might trigger a second round of Civil War.

MHO, of course. "What if" means no one is ever really wrong...

To finish my reply:

In the Pacific? Japan was doomed the moment they decided to attack Pearl Harbor. It's as simple as that. They could not hope to match the industrial power of the United States, the only nation that could was the Soviet Union, and I'm not all together sure of that. (though some will doubtless disagree.)

Japan had the initial advantage in numbers. Training. ...and quality. There's no doubt as to that, that's why they ran amuk for the first six months of the war in the Pacific. Yamamoto himself said as much. He said for six months we'll be invincible (words to that effect, anyway), after that I guarantee nothing. It was six months almost to the day that Midway occurred. But the real turning point in the Pacific wasn't Midway, though that certainly put an exclamation point on it, the turning point was Japans failure to capture Port Moresby in New Guinea, and to get across the Owen Stanley mountains. The Battle of the Coral Sea was part and partial to that failure, and the incredible fight the Aussies put up in the mountains of New Guinea. Midway, a month later in June, along with the Aleutian Islands campaign, were to be the last pieces of the Ribbon defense meant to deter the Americans. Midway due to great intelligence work, and a lot of just incredible luck (and the skill to take advantage), put paid to their Pacific and Asian ambitions. Guadalcanal and the Solomon Islands campaign was the beginning of the roll back.

Without the Commonwealth? It might have been done anyway, that's how big a mismatch it really was, but they made it much easier, especially at the end. I will never, ever slight the contributions of those brave, brave folks who fought alongside my Dad, his brothers, and my Mom's brothers across the Pacific Ocean. My Dad would reach down from the Heavens Above and smack me upside the head if I did.

No, the Pacific war featured a bantam weight against a super heavy weight. If he gets the first punch in, he might survive, if the heavy weight has a glass jaw. Whatever else? The US doesn't feature a glass jaw. Once the initial shock was over? It was only a matter of time, treasure, and blood...lots of blood.

much longer response than I originally intended... sorry.


edit on 3/30/2016 by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: nerbot

The thing about that is you can not predict how something like that is really going to turn out, can you?

Human emotion. Courage. ...and everything that goes along with that have a habit of turning plots against you.

Plan for all eventualities during a global war? Impossible. During two of 'em? Not happening.

Take advantage? Surely. It's what politicians, and business men do. Both for good and for ill. But that's very different from plotting it over cigars and sherry.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   


IMO, the best pilots in Europe on par with their american counterparts in the pacific. Maybe better.

i think the polish and czech's were known as the best pilots.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Losing a war doesn't mean the soldiers were inferior..

Germany's biggest problem was they had to many sycophants around Hitler... and not enough men to tell him when he was wrong.

Their industrial base wasnt good enough, and they didnt have enough natural resources for modern war...

The defense of Berlin would be in the history books of one of the greatest ever if they hadn't had so many unhinged people in charge directing the atrocities.

They crushed the French, and drove the british out of europe for a time... they were not inferior on the battle field, but they were outclassed at the upper command level. (outside of a handful of Generals, Rommel and Kesselring being two notable exceptions)



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I think the most relevant question in any debate of this subject is: Would Germany have won without US involvement. I think the answer is still no, but not because US participation wasn't absolutely crucial in the final outcome. Germany would not have won because I can not see how Germany would have been able to consistently hold the Russian, Western European and Southern European fronts as well as the African campaign, they were being hit on all sides.

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.




posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

Truth.




posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
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?



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Losing a war doesn't mean the soldiers were inferior..




Too true and you are totally right there. I was joking about the quality of the soldiers in some ways. Hey they were just cannon fodder for the buggers at the top, but they did fight well, extremely well. As you say they did beat the French and did clear Britain out of the continent. I was being a little jingo lol, to be honest the Germans v Brits on a battle field at leat in 1939 was going to be a loss for the British. The Germans really went for it and very nearly took out Moscow, well that could have been the end for the UK. We wouldn't have stood a chance from a Germany with a totally subdued and defeated USSR.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: nerbot

The thing about that is you can not predict how something like that is really going to turn out, can you?

Human emotion. Courage. ...and everything that goes along with that have a habit of turning plots against you.

Plan for all eventualities during a global war? Impossible. During two of 'em? Not happening.

Take advantage? Surely. It's what politicians, and business men do. Both for good and for ill. But that's very different from plotting it over cigars and sherry.


Human nature, while the extremes are unusual to the masses, the extremes are the playthings of the elite.

Why do you think the masses are obsessed with main stream news and reality TV?



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Text

Text
a reply to: crazyewok

Survived, yes, speaking German at the behest of Hitler. But let's just not stop with the UK. Would the world not have been in the hands of the Nazi and the Japanese if not for the US? (Actually, they probably would be speaking Russian because without the US entering the fray, The Soviets would have eventually defeated the Nazis and eventually would have marched across Europe (racing through France, of course,) and tackled the UK on their home field.)


Or we can ask the question in another way from the OP's way: How would the UK have survived on its own and that means without the millions of dollars worth of free "lend lease" materials that the US supplied.


This really is a no brain and I'm quite willing to let it go but if not for those that claim that the UK was merely starting to get its second wind after Dunkirk.


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

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



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Ahh.. missed the tone then apologies...

Its all good, a couple people today got under my skin so that made me a little snappish.




posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   
the battle of britain ultimately lost the war for germany, way before america got involved.
germany was systematically wiping out the RAF, bombing airstrips and thereby the planes until, 24th august 1940 when during a night raid, off course german bombers accidentally bombed london, in revenge britain hit berlin, etc.
meanwhile stalin's tactic of feeding soldiers into the meat grinder got them into berlin first, and would have worked regardless of a western front opening.
russia's losses would have been even higher, however postwar stalin showed how much disregard he held for human life.

hitler's only victories came against the inferior polish and danish armies while the french were holed up in the maginot line allowing the germans virtually no resistance, leaving the unprepared flemish army believing the maginot line was impassable.
doh.

much like the great war, america got involved late, yet took all the credit and had too much say in the reshaping of the world postwar.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
You forget that it wasn't just the UK, It was the UK and all the dominions, India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, The Caribbean and a whole bunch more countries.

Of course it would have been a bit shaky but the die was already cast by the time the US got in properly.

Between us and the Soviets, Germany's days were numbered.

Japan would have been a bit tougher though, The US pacific fleet was the big difference in that theatre, but that is a different thread.




top topics



 
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join