How vital for great Britain was America WW2?
- Thread starter nightrider1470
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,353
i suspect it would either have been a stalemate, or we'd have tried to put a stranglehold on europe, using our empire to block incoming supplies.
after all starving germany of resources is what tipped them over the edge in the first world war it stands to reason we could do it again.
it's also likely the russians might have taken up the slack left by the americans, and being even more jaded due to heavier losses might well have left them with europe conquered and a lot of vengeful feelings so the following cold war might not have been so cold.
after all starving germany of resources is what tipped them over the edge in the first world war it stands to reason we could do it again.
it's also likely the russians might have taken up the slack left by the americans, and being even more jaded due to heavier losses might well have left them with europe conquered and a lot of vengeful feelings so the following cold war might not have been so cold.
We would have had to abandon fighting the war and would have defended the UK instead. Eventually we would have been forced to sign a peace treaty. Germany could then have concentrated on Russia and possibly beaten them. I'm not sure whether Germany would have then broken the peace treaty and invaded the UK. But without Russia and the US in the war they would have won eventually.
However I don't see how the US would have stayed out of the war forever. Japan wanted to take control of the Pacific and would eventually attacked American bases at some point.
EDIT: It's odd to think that I was born closer to WW2 than I was to 2018. When I was at school in the early 1970's there was genuine animosity to German people.
However I don't see how the US would have stayed out of the war forever. Japan wanted to take control of the Pacific and would eventually attacked American bases at some point.
EDIT: It's odd to think that I was born closer to WW2 than I was to 2018. When I was at school in the early 1970's there was genuine animosity to German people.
Last edited:
One of my sons married a German girl.
At the wedding I introduced my dad (a veteran of D-Day, who served in a tank regiment in Normandy), to the bride’s father, who had served in the S-S in Russia, and was captured in central Germany near the end of the war, by U.S. forces.
Rolf wasn’t fluent in English, but he spoke it quite well.
After some joking about being fortunate that he wasn’t in Normandy, facing my dad in 1944, as there may not have been a wedding for them both to attend, he said that in his opinion, if the “madman” hadn’t initiated Operation Barbarossa in 1941, he (Rolf), would likely have been mustered out of the army in an overrun Britain at the end of the war.
He joked that Germany got something good out of losing, my son was stationed in Germany in the BAOR, got captured by his daughter, and never went back to England.
At the wedding I introduced my dad (a veteran of D-Day, who served in a tank regiment in Normandy), to the bride’s father, who had served in the S-S in Russia, and was captured in central Germany near the end of the war, by U.S. forces.
Rolf wasn’t fluent in English, but he spoke it quite well.
After some joking about being fortunate that he wasn’t in Normandy, facing my dad in 1944, as there may not have been a wedding for them both to attend, he said that in his opinion, if the “madman” hadn’t initiated Operation Barbarossa in 1941, he (Rolf), would likely have been mustered out of the army in an overrun Britain at the end of the war.
He joked that Germany got something good out of losing, my son was stationed in Germany in the BAOR, got captured by his daughter, and never went back to England.
America was absolutely vital for the ultimate defeat of Nazi Germany although had Hitler let his generals do the military strategy rather than seeing himself as a strategic genius (which he wasn’t) things would have been very different.
It’s widely acknowledged that Hitler ordering the switching of attacking RAF airfields to bombing cities saved the RAF from defeat during the Battle of Britain this tactical blunder gave them time to regroup and ultimately stay the course, all the Germans wanted was air superiority to invade, they knew that with it they could have got a foot hold on the south coast and we couldn’t have done much to prevent it.
Looking back with hindsight is easy, but, had Hitler thrown the resources he had for operation Barbarossa (which ultimately was the vast majority of the German armed fources) first at Britain, we’d have crumbled, the German losses would have been huge but nothing compared to what they ultimately lost on the eastern front.
All this could have happened long before the US became involved and by the time of Pearl Harbour we’d have most likely and realistically capitulated given we had nothing left to fight an invader off with after Dunkirk.
DDay didn’t happen until 1944 because it took that long for us to prepare along with the US to be ready to invade Europe, without them we couldn’t possibly have done it imo.
It’s widely acknowledged that Hitler ordering the switching of attacking RAF airfields to bombing cities saved the RAF from defeat during the Battle of Britain this tactical blunder gave them time to regroup and ultimately stay the course, all the Germans wanted was air superiority to invade, they knew that with it they could have got a foot hold on the south coast and we couldn’t have done much to prevent it.
Looking back with hindsight is easy, but, had Hitler thrown the resources he had for operation Barbarossa (which ultimately was the vast majority of the German armed fources) first at Britain, we’d have crumbled, the German losses would have been huge but nothing compared to what they ultimately lost on the eastern front.
All this could have happened long before the US became involved and by the time of Pearl Harbour we’d have most likely and realistically capitulated given we had nothing left to fight an invader off with after Dunkirk.
DDay didn’t happen until 1944 because it took that long for us to prepare along with the US to be ready to invade Europe, without them we couldn’t possibly have done it imo.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,590
Just imagine how glorious this country would be if the war had not started in the first place.It ruined everything.
Ah you serious? Because WW2 did a huge jump-start to technology everywhere. Everything you appreciate today was developed during WW2.
There is least a dozen things in your home right now, thanks to military technology advancement. The list is way too long, but everyone used Duct tape right? Well, you can think WW2 for that, Microwaves is an other good example.
How would we have blocked them off, what with? We managed in Africa because of American supplies, after the battle of Britain we did very little except what we was good at Commando tactics. The 2nd world war was won because of the American industry supplying us and in particular the Russian numbers. We were all but done after the BOB. They made 320,000 aircraft and over 6000 ships during the 2nd world war, over 100 of which were carriers. All the rifles supplied to the home guard came from American, they supplied millions of machine guns and rifles. American made tanks, jeeps and trucks kept russia going.
All hell let loose by Max Hastings and Antony Beevers World war 2 histories are essential reading, Ian Kershaws books too. All British and all dismissive of our abilities as a land fighting force in the 2nd world war. All put us as barely above the Italians for competence. All put our job as hanging in until America joined in. I think a lot of the dismissive attitude to Americas contribution comes from my Dads generation, over too late, over after the fighting was done blah blah and the hardships that came post WW2, a lot of which I had no idea about myself until reading Postwar: A History of Europe since WW2 by Tony Judt. I think how much we owed America with rationing going onto 1954 clouded a lot of peoples view on America.
Hitler made epic mistakes well documented but without America it would still have been enough to finish us off once pushed back. We were never going to go on the offensive again in large enough numbers without American aid.
Yeah there's no way we would be using duct tape now if it wasn't for WW2.
The cost to this country was huge, we were broke. It can easily be said that without that war debt a lot more advances in this country could have been made with money to spend.
We had emergency programs that went into full swing after Dunkirk and the loss of so much equipment - but they are often overlooked in history because supplies started rolling in from the US and Canada making them unnecessary.
It is however the massive supply efforts of US and Britain to Russia that kept them in the war amongst other things we sent them 4500 Hurricanes and Spitfires.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,590
You don't invent something without a purpose and a cause. World War 2 and all the wars before it provided a problem to solve. You can thank the military and all wars going back to Roman times for the advances in medical technology and science.
Everything from X-rays, Blood transfusions, dressings, tourniquets, World War 1 and a lot of wars before that helped spearhead first aid and medical treatment.
The list is god damn endless.
It's very possible, things could had been invented later on instead of when they got invented, for example, the internet, that could had been pushed down the road a little more, so I wouldn't even be telling you this.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 47,227
No chance in the long run. We had no money, technologically the Germans had a number of extremely advanced projects.
An interesting, but related questions is whether the US, Britain and the other Allies should have then pushed into Russia given what we knew the eventual outcome would be.
It is also interesting to consider what would have happened to the empire if the US had not broken away.
An interesting, but related questions is whether the US, Britain and the other Allies should have then pushed into Russia given what we knew the eventual outcome would be.
It is also interesting to consider what would have happened to the empire if the US had not broken away.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 1,010
Wasn't the US program boosted by taking on German scientists after the war?
The post Hitler leadership of Germany (prior to unconditional surrender) were convinced the allies would join forces with them to defeat the Soviet “enemy” and were astounded the allies didn’t hold the same views they couldn’t grasp that we’d not turn on our ally who we’d spent the previous years supporting via the Atlantic convoy system.
It’s documented in the superb book by Albert Speer - a man who’d have known this well - Hitlers Chief Architect and latterly Reich minister of Armaments and war production - “Inside the third Reich”
Last edited:
Churchill initially wanted to.
Their rocket program was hugely, Von Braun ended up designing the Saturn V moon landing rocket rather than facing war crimes as many thought he should, they didn’t need the nuclear physicists as the manhattan project had surpassed the German program (to the point of completion) prior to Nazi Germanys defeat.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 28,903
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
We would have still "won" but it would have taken much longer. People just think of 1944 when it comes to America but there was the whole African front which we won. Also the Italian front which we won. We also won the air superiority Battle of Britain. You also have to take into account WW1 if that was lost hitler would have risen into a much stronger Germany.
Russia had already technically defeated Germany way before 1944 which was the main problem for them. Turning point being 1941-1942. The UK would most likely of landed in France but it would have been a few years later. Soviet Union would have most likely ended up with far more land and controlled most of Europe.
As already mentioned America did supply us with plenty of equipment so it entirely depends on how you class the involvement, troops on the ground or investment?
There are plenty of untold stories as well. My grandfather fought in Burma with the Gurkas, Indians and Chinese. People automatically think of our little island but the empire was still big during WW2
Russia had already technically defeated Germany way before 1944 which was the main problem for them. Turning point being 1941-1942. The UK would most likely of landed in France but it would have been a few years later. Soviet Union would have most likely ended up with far more land and controlled most of Europe.
As already mentioned America did supply us with plenty of equipment so it entirely depends on how you class the involvement, troops on the ground or investment?
There are plenty of untold stories as well. My grandfather fought in Burma with the Gurkas, Indians and Chinese. People automatically think of our little island but the empire was still big during WW2
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 1,010
If Germany had won WWI then Hitler would probably have been irrelevant. The conditions for him to rise wouldn't have been there.
The African front for instance - without US assistance we'd have almost certainly had to reconfigure for defensive positions, due to diverting more assets to protect the homefront, protecting our resources in the region for supplying the war effort likely resulting in a stalemate.
Going down that path its likely Africa today would be carved up between Italian, German and British territories.
Another well known misnomer is that Spitfires won the battle of Britain when in fact they 'helped' Hurricanes to win it.
In 1940 anyone who flew wanted to be a Spitfire pilot - it was sexier. And the legend went worldwide.
Even the Germans talked it up as a better plane. Captured Luftwaffe pilots would lie about what had shot them down, always claiming it was a Spitfire so the star quality would rub off on them.
But in truth the more numerous Hawker Hurricane did Hitler more damage.
The reason the Hurricane was popular is simple - it was a great killing machine. With four guns grouped together on each wing, the Hurricane made a much more stable gun platform than the Spitfire when shooting at enemy planes.
The set-up made it far easier for the pilot to concentrate gunfire.
With the Spitfire, bullets would fly everywhere like a scattergun. The Hurricane was also better for the kind of dogfights pilots routinely got into with the Germans.
Officials who showed journalists technological advances in the war effort took them to factories building the Supermarine Spitfire, so the public knew much more about the plane.
Thanks to this, a myth of superiority grew up about the Spitfire in playgrounds, workplaces and saloon bars.
The pilots knew the truth but even they succumbed to snobbery. Many would have claimed to be a Spitfire pilot down the pub to impress a young girl when they really had a Hurricane at home.
One of Britain's most famous ever flyers, Douglas Bader, while flying Spitfires in much of the war actually opted for Hurricanes in the Battle of Britain.
In 1940 anyone who flew wanted to be a Spitfire pilot - it was sexier. And the legend went worldwide.
Even the Germans talked it up as a better plane. Captured Luftwaffe pilots would lie about what had shot them down, always claiming it was a Spitfire so the star quality would rub off on them.
But in truth the more numerous Hawker Hurricane did Hitler more damage.
The reason the Hurricane was popular is simple - it was a great killing machine. With four guns grouped together on each wing, the Hurricane made a much more stable gun platform than the Spitfire when shooting at enemy planes.
The set-up made it far easier for the pilot to concentrate gunfire.
With the Spitfire, bullets would fly everywhere like a scattergun. The Hurricane was also better for the kind of dogfights pilots routinely got into with the Germans.
Officials who showed journalists technological advances in the war effort took them to factories building the Supermarine Spitfire, so the public knew much more about the plane.
Thanks to this, a myth of superiority grew up about the Spitfire in playgrounds, workplaces and saloon bars.
The pilots knew the truth but even they succumbed to snobbery. Many would have claimed to be a Spitfire pilot down the pub to impress a young girl when they really had a Hurricane at home.
One of Britain's most famous ever flyers, Douglas Bader, while flying Spitfires in much of the war actually opted for Hurricanes in the Battle of Britain.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 47,227
Funny how such atrocities can get overlooked. Just look at the 'scientists' the US took from Japan who had been carrying out human medical experiments. It is also interesting to consider the huge advancements these barbaric experiments led to.