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

a reply to: seagull

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

This what it really boils down to in the end.
Had Hitler stuck to his talent of stirring patriotism for the Reich, and left the military planning to the generals, he could have built up a war machine that would have made what he began with look very sad. Think of masses of V-2 missiles, jet fighter and bomber aircraft, and masses of Koenigtigers moving into the Soviet Union at the right time.

Think of fleets of U-boats sinking shipping around Great Britain and the Luftwaffe making a no-fly zone of the area around it. There would have been no need to invade.

I think the world was very lucky that his madness gave him poor decision-making.

a reply to: seagull

Good point.

If Hitler had swallowed his ego and truelly allied with the USSR we would have all been toast

Why is this an issue? The US and the UK worked together to win WW II and beat the Germans, among others. LOTS of people died in the process, both military and civilian. In many respects they were unnecessary deaths. End of Story

Really.

End-of-story.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
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!

You won me over!

USA USA USA!

PS don't forget Donald Trump in a time machine !

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.

The lend lease program is an excellent example of making profit from other peoples misfortune and war. Fairly sure America at the time would have liked to have left it at that. Hoover did something extremely similar in World War One before America joined the war.

To the OP though, would the UK have survived? I believe so, and to think it's just this island is incorrect given that the Commonwealth/Empire at the time was still extremely significant, and its members fought bravely worldwide. As has been pointed out, the battle of Britain was a massive turning point (prior to American involvement), but it's extremely difficult to remove one part of a bigger puzzle and work out all of the equations.

Tell you one thing though, American films and HBO would have evolved a lot differently - they would have to have been a hell of a lot more blatant in the way they picture America as having won the war single handedly!

America just made money of us the British people. After we had started to turn the tables and your pockets were fat then you decided to join in. Its pretty much what you have done ever since is profiteer off war, only ever joining in or starting a war for your own benefit haha

a reply to: uncommitted

I think it was a little more than making a profit... dont get me wrong that definitely played a part. But prior to both world wars the american people didnt care if europeans wanted to kill each other, our govt saw things differently and came up with a way to assist till they could convince people to put boots on the ground.

The profit angle is one of the ways they were able to make it happen, despite the isolationist thought process that dominated most of the USA.

Least thats my opinion...

originally posted by: seagull
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.

Before Pearl Harbour, Joe Kennedy (then ambassador to Great Britain for America) told Roosevelt not to interfere and predicted swastikas hanging in Downing Street - not sure Roosevelt would have been too fussed about an Armistice at that point as long as American interests were not at risk.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: uncommitted

I think it was a little more than making a profit... dont get me wrong that definitely played a part. But prior to both world wars the american people didnt care if europeans wanted to kill each other, our govt saw things differently and came up with a way to assist till they could convince people to put boots on the ground.

The profit angle is one of the ways they were able to make it happen, despite the isolationist thought process that dominated most of the USA.

Least thats my opinion...

Of course that's a perfectly valid opinion - not sure I agree totally with it, but there you go. Fairly sure the US government was equally isolationist though until it was pushed into a corner.

These discussions always seem to revolve around the Europe part (ok granted the topic is UK).
It was much broader, lots of stuff happened in Asia too. Hence the reason why our country had a lot of immigrants that fought for us against the Japanese and the governments that wanted to get rid of us and our colonial urges. (see what I did there? immigrants, lots of them in Europe while some people suggest we only know now what it is,) But I'm getting off-topic.

Here locally where I live, I remember the stories of my grandparents and their friends, the stories of how the resistance prepared all the work and the Canadians fought their asses off. And the Yanks waving their flags afterwards. And how all that was not possible if the Russians weren't being involved. I even want to suggest that the whole freeing of Europe is accelerated by the driven force of East vs West and both wanted to get to Berlin first. Which ultimately was the basis of the cold war and the MAD scenario that was created.

a reply to: crazyewok

The UK could not have sustained a long term war. Why? Lack of required resources to conduct a long war. Eventually the UK would have succumbed.

English would not be the primary language in the UK today had they lost.

a reply to: bucsarg

yes it would. Britain would have negotiated a peace with the Germans. A German invasion of the UK was impossible. Britain would lose the war but would survive as a nation without falling under Nazi domination.

originally posted by: bucsarg
a reply to: crazyewok

The UK could not have sustained a long term war. Why? Lack of required resources to conduct a long war. Eventually the UK would have succumbed.

English would not be the primary language in the UK today had they lost.

Same was true of Germany. They too did not have the resources.

Hence there attempts to capture Africa and Russia.

UK was fine with resources as long as we kept the trade routes open and the Roya8 navy did.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: crazyewok

Or Germany could just blockade your island and starve you guys for resources (all while continuing to relentlessly bomb you as they were) until you surrender. It's hard to say if the US "saved" the UK as such, but y'all were DEFINITELY hurting without us and it's likely your upper command wouldn't have lasted much longer before being forced to surrender.

Maybe they had farms in the uk under the medieval dark ages of the 1940, many succumbed to the black plague , i know that cattle was invented in the US maybe in the 30s.. I dont know, maybe,.. But im sure a 200 year old republic would aid a 2000 year old monarchy.. hmmm..

My 2c. Yes because Britain won the battle of Britain then Hitler invaded Russia and started losing. The Russians probably did most of the defeating of Germany. Would've taken longer but Germany would've still lost.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: crazyewok

Or Germany could just blockade your island and starve you guys for resources (all while continuing to relentlessly bomb you as they were) until you surrender. It's hard to say if the US "saved" the UK as such, but y'all were DEFINITELY hurting without us and it's likely your upper command wouldn't have lasted much longer before being forced to surrender.

Most of the bombing of the Uk stopped once the Germans invaded Russia, so that's a no-no, considering how many ships laden with food still berthed (tied up in port) in the UK, I don't think the UK would have been starved into surrender, as it is, some shipping experts reckon the u-boats sank about 5% of the total world shipping.

FDR was damn glad of the European war, and the UK holding out, that war dragged the USA out of a horrendous business slump.

a reply to: crazyewok

First, let me say, I haven't read through all the replies.
Second, let me say this is a topic that is fascinating to me as I'm quite the student of history of WWII and of the military capabilities of all sides.

The UK could have fended off Germany on its own and without US help and done so quite handily particularly after Hitler's disastrous decision to invade Russia. The invasion of Russia sealed Germany's defeat and while its not obvious that Britain would have won, a review of just a few issues proves it ultimately true.

Little known facts that would have insured Britain's ultimate defeat of Germany. 1) The British under Montgomery defeated the Germans in North Africa and did that before the US came into the fight. The British Tanks were actually superior, though in smaller numbers, than the German Tanks; the Italians couldn't maintain the supply lines to Rommel's army and the British Air Force flying from Malta cut off the German supply lines. By the time the US got into the war, Rommel was all but finished. 2) By blundering into Russia, Hitler incurred a disastrous shortage of steel and fuel and wouldn't have been able to prosecute the war much past 1945. 3) The British Navy would have ultimately defeated the U-Boat threat with or without US help because of a) technological superiority, i.e. sonar b) successful British bombing of sub pens along the French coast, and c) the German Naval High Command was horrified that Hitler had started the war when they believed they needed twice the number of submarines then in commission.

Finally and the most obvious reason Britain would have prevailed is because it had the full resources of the entire Empire behind it; limitless man power, oil, iron ore (via Australia), and other precious resources like Rubber. Another not so well known fact is that the British Air Force night time bombing of Germany's industries was far more effective than the US daytime bombing operation and would have crippled the German war effort.

I'm also relatively certain no one will agree with my analysis. But.....Germany would have never been able to successfully invade Britain and the attack on Russia sealed Germany's fate.

a reply to: Ohanka

I agree the UK would have negotiated a truce. However, over a long period of time either the Nazis or Communists would have taken over all the governance, the resources, the education systems, etc. Either Hitler or Stalin would have conducted extermination as well. The UK would have lost its identity.

originally posted by: Dumbass
These discussions always seem to revolve around the Europe part (ok granted the topic is UK).
It was much broader, lots of stuff happened in Asia too. Hence the reason why our country had a lot of immigrants that fought for us against the Japanese and the governments that wanted to get rid of us and our colonial urges. (see what I did there? immigrants, lots of them in Europe while some people suggest we only know now what it is,) But I'm getting off-topic.

Here locally where I live, I remember the stories of my grandparents and their friends, the stories of how the resistance prepared all the work and the Canadians fought their asses off. And the Yanks waving their flags afterwards. And how all that was not possible if the Russians weren't being involved. I even want to suggest that the whole freeing of Europe is accelerated by the driven force of East vs West and both wanted to get to Berlin first. Which ultimately was the basis of the cold war and the MAD scenario that was created.

Eisenhower told all his commanders he did not want a bloodbath taking Berlin, it was left to the Russians, as Berlin is east of the demarcation river known as the Elbe.

a reply to: TonyS

British tanks were better? really? had a look at the specs for a Panther tank? also in north Afrika when the British played bingo why did the cry go up 'driver reverse' when the caller said 'eighty eight' ? Mark four tanks were continuously up armoured and up gunned, the mark four 'specials' had 75's long before the Sherman came along. Quantity beat Germany, the kraut was too fixated on quality.