How vital for great Britain was America WW2?

[terley]

Wasn't that more down to Britain cracking the enigma?

Alan Turing and the enigma machine (obviously with polish help) tends to be forgotten or not mentioned as it was only made public knowledge in 2001 i believe, by which point the majority of history had already been written and taught.

Luckily they have a fantastic museum at bletchley park.. it was an honour to go there last year for my computing degree

 

[Minusorange]

Minusorange your arguments are really not based on reality but a fantasy 'what if' scenario.

Eh ? The idea of the thread is based on a "what if" scenario

"What if the US stopped supplying us would we have been conquered"

I don't really understand why you're asking where's the debate to what I said while not questioning the premise of the thread

I mean it's not like we're debating stupid "what if's" like what if Hitler had a pet Cat instead of a Dog or what if Hitler hadn't lost one of his ball sacks in WW1 or what if Hitler was actually a decent artist

 

[terley]

& the enigma machine itself.

 

[Superficial]

Eh ? The idea of the thread is based on a "what if" scenario

"What if the US stopped supplying us would we have been conquered"

I don't really understand why you're asking where's the debate to what I said while not questioning the premise of the thread

Because the 'what if' scenario of the OP was set in stone and IS the topic of the thread that's why.

To use your logic we could just go ahead and say either side would have won if x number of things had happened or x number of mistakes had not been made. It's just not sensible and we could go on forever.

To be honest I wouldn't mind if your stance wasn't clearly that we were on the winning side just because the Germans didn't do a few things...be fair you are quite reticent to give much credit to the Brits so far Minusorange.

 

[Superficial]

The RAF was at breaking point, had the Luftwaffles continued knocking out the Radars (which was key to fighter command being able to utilise what few aircraft they had to maximum effect) and airfields we would have crumbled and no advances in signal interception would have changed that

It's a well known and accepted fact (by historians on both sides)that the Battle Britain would have been ultimately won by the far superior Royal Navy so whether the RAF had failed in their endeavour or not (they won by a ratio of 2:1 show down aircraft which is exceptional).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527068/Battle-of-Britain-was-won-at-sea.-Discuss.html

Yeah sure IF the Germans had scuppered our radar then things might have been different but they didn't and the Royal Navy, according to the experts, would have staved off the attack.

 

[Rroff]

It's a well known and accepted fact (by historians on both sides)that the Battle Britain would have been ultimately won by the far superior Royal Navy so whether the RAF had failed in their endeavour or not (they won by a ratio of 2:1 show down aircraft which is exceptional).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527068/Battle-of-Britain-was-won-at-sea.-Discuss.html

Yeah sure IF the Germans had scuppered our radar then things might have been different but they didn't and the Royal Navy, according to the experts, would have staved off the attack.

It is a long time since I read that article and only skim re-read it but I think I disagree with their assessment about the RN and vulnerability to air attacks - if we'd have lost the BoB the Germans were in a better position to rebuild their air capabilities faster and ultimately at a point were the value of air superiority in naval warfare was starting to really be understood.

In a scenario where we couldn't be resupplied or supported by the US that becomes even more pressing.

Not pointed at you but a common mistake here is overlooking the fact that in order to not give away how far we had progressed in deciphering and understanding German intelligence and signals some targets were intentionally sacrificed (and there were errors in the accuracy, etc. and reliability of interception). Winning moves were played out but sometimes things had to look more precarious so as not to give the game away.

 

[Superficial]

It is a long time since I read that article and only skim re-read it but I think I disagree with their assessment about the RN and vulnerability to air attacks - if we'd have lost the BoB the Germans were in a better position to rebuild their air capabilities faster and ultimately at a point were the value of air superiority in naval warfare was starting to really be understood.

In a scenario where we couldn't be resupplied or supported by the US that becomes even more pressing.

Well it's your right but I'm going with the experts. That article just references expert opinion.

I obviously agree that US support was vital but up until 1940 we held our own but were never going to be in a position to really push into Europe.

Pulling it back to the topic in the OP - Let's all remember that, even with American assistance which began in 1941, it took until 1944 to work together and invade Europe.

Certainly we needed the help of the USA but they were no magic bullet and what was achieved was achieved with the British, Canadians, Australians and, of course, the Russians.

 

[Minusorange]

Because the 'what if' scenario of the OP was set in stone and IS the topic of the thread that's why.

To use your logic we could just go ahead and say either side would have won if x number of things had happened or x number of mistakes had not been made. It's just not sensible and we could go on forever.

To be honest I wouldn't mind if your stance wasn't clearly that we were on the winning side just because the Germans didn't do a few things...be fair you are quite reticent to give much credit to the Brits Minuorange.

Eh ? I said it was as much to our heroism and spirit as it was to Hitlers ineptitude how is that not giving much credit to us

Sorry for sacrificing patriotism for reality, I didn't realise this was an echo chamber (so much for debate) for how superior we were/are as a nation

IF the US had not supplied us then we would have lost it's really that simple

As for Royal Navy

Bill Bond, founder of the Battle of Britain Historical Society, is quoted as saying ‘Without air cover the Luftwaffe bombers would have smashed all the ports.’ Seemingly the Navy were not entirely unbeatable and may not have been a match to direct attack from the air. Surely then the threat of the Navy can not have been the only aspect of the British defence that protected us from invasion.

Only SOME historians think the RN would have held off the invasion, not all

And again it's a what if scenario because the RAF won the BoB and we never got to see what would happen had they failed so there will be theories for a victory for either side I lean more towards a Nazi victory simply due to the reality it would just become a siege of our island and a war of attrition which the Nazi's would hold the advantage over us in the long term

We might not have been invaded but we would have been out of the war which would allow Hitler to focus solely on the Eastern front, likely win and come back to us at a later date

 

[nightrider1470]

Original poster here

Is it obvious that Hitler new about Japan bombing of Pearl harbor?.... Surely Hitler knew the repercussions if so....

At what point regards the bombing on Pearl harbor did Hitler choose to invade Russia?, before or after? ... If this was after Pearl harbor , he truly was a mad man, who didn't care for his people, as that was an impossible fight!

 

[StriderX]

Hitler was jacked up on all sorts of drugs, like all of his men, he barely knew what was going on and just wanted it done. Russia has always been an aggravation for Germany, the Soviets were perhaps a bad idea in retrospect by the Kaiser.

 

[Superficial]

Eh ? I said it was as much to our heroism and spirit as it was to Hitlers ineptitude how is that not giving much credit to us

Sorry for sacrificing patriotism for reality, I didn't realise this was an echo chamber (so much for debate) for how superior we were/are as a nation

Rubbish. Every point you've made since is effectively saying the Brits were basically just lucky. How boring.

And shut up about patriotism - no one said and thing about that, I'd settle for some logic and impartiality and/or balance - or should we all listen to more of your 'err if that had happened or they had done this' nonsense?

It always makes me laugh when people try to hide behind the childish patriotism argument... There really is no need to be patriotic and/or defensive because we won the war and the battle of Britain.

IF the US had not supplied us then we would have lost it's really that simple

How does that statement contradict anything I have posted? Or could you not be bothered to read my last post?

As for Royal Navy

Only SOME historians think the RN would have held off the invasion, not all

And again it's a what if scenario because the RAF won the BoB and we never got to see what would happen had they failed so there will be theories for a victory for either side I lean more towards a Nazi victory simply due to the reality it would just become a siege of our island and a war of attrition which the Nazi's would hold the advantage over us in the long term.

No long winded war of attrition was discussed prior to this and the discussion centred around the BOB and the follow up possible success of Operation Sea Lion.[/quote]

 

[Rroff]

Well it's your right but I'm going with the experts. That article just references expert opinion.

I can't follow their line of thinking - with the BoB lost Germany would have been able to use what was left of their airforce to harass our aircraft production capabilities and bomb our airfields, etc. while no longer under such threat to their own allowing them to rebuild their airforce. While especially without aircraft carriers they'd be unable to press home that advantage against the RN they wouldn't need to do that for an invasion - just hold corridors across the channel which would have been perfectly doable.

I think maybe some experts are falling into that trap that the Germans were a bit late adapting to this - but both the Ju 88s and Stuka were used effectively against shipping.

 

[Superficial]

I can't follow their line of thinking - with the BoB lost Germany would have been able to use what was left of their airforce to harass our aircraft production capabilities and bomb our airfields, etc. while no longer under such threat to their own allowing them to rebuild their airforce. While especially without aircraft carriers they'd be unable to press home that advantage against the RN they wouldn't need to do that for an invasion - just hold corridors across the channel which would have been perfectly doable.

I think maybe some experts are falling into that trap that the Germans were a bit late adapting to this - but both the Ju 88s and Stuka were used effectively against shipping.

I'm starting to be concerned that your line of logic might have a tinge of tunnel vision about it but I don't have the numbers of how many reserve aircraft there were or our ability to reproduce them quickly. Even so I find it hard to believe that a loss of the Air battle automatically leads to a total and complete loss of emergency aircraft but who knows.

irrespective of that the point made here doesn't tackle the RN presence issue comprehensively...

Another article on the subject and this time I'll include Jodls famous line:

As the German general Jodl put it, so long as the British Navy existed, an invasion would be to send 'my troops into a mincing machine'.

https://www.standard.co.uk/testnews...n-truth-of-battle-of-britain-few-7084698.html

 

[G-MAN2004]

Just imagine how glorious this country would be if the war had not started in the first place. It ruined everything.

 

[Minusorange]

I'd settle for some logic and impartiality and/or balance

No you wouldn't, not when you're citing opinion from select historians as "well known fact"

No long winded war of attrition was discussed prior to this and the discussion centred around the BOB and the follow up possible success of Operation Sea Lion.

It stands to reason If US didn't support us with supplies from the start of the war and with the supposed strength of our navy then our island would become a glorified fortress that would be put to siege and sieges are won by attrition which the Germans would have won, I don't understand how you can talk about logic yet dismiss anything that doesn't suit your obtusely predefined rules for debating the "what if" of this thread, this isn't speakers corner you know ?

 

[Rroff]

I'm starting to be concerned that your line of logic might have a tinge of tunnel vision about it but I don't have the numbers of how many reserve aircraft there were or our ability to reproduce them quickly. Even so I find it hard to believe that a loss of the Air battle automatically leads to a total and complete loss of emergency aircraft but who knows.


Another article on the subject and this time I'll include Jodls famous line:



https://www.standard.co.uk/testnews...n-truth-of-battle-of-britain-few-7084698.html

Seems to be based on lack of armour piercing bombs - but they had torpedoes that could do the job and would have likely pushed forward with anti-ship weapons in that scenario.

 

[Superficial]

No you wouldn't, not when you're citing opinion from select historians as "well known fact"

You're boring me - that statement doesn't in the least counter the point I made about impartiality, balance and logic does it? It is perfectly logical (btw)to rely on experts to support an argument. These are professional historians from all sides cited in multiple articles.

Not to mention the FACTS we have about the size, record and general capability of the Royal Navy.

It stands to reason If US didn't support us with supplies from the start of the war and with the supposed strength of our navy then our island would become a glorified fortress that would be put to siege and sieges are won by attrition which the Germans would have won, I don't understand how you can talk about logic yet dismiss anything that doesn't suit your obtusely predefined rules for debating the "what if" of this thread, this isn't speakers corner you know ?

Who the hell are you trying to kid? - you've gone from 'err if the Germans had just knocked out a bit of more of our radar we'd have lost the entire BOB' and been invaded to us losing a war of prolonged attrition.

Either the BOB itself is lost and therefore operation Sealion (the actual invasion) is successful or you don't have a bloody point.

I refer you to my original statement:

Yeah sure IF the Germans had scuppered our radar then things might have been different but they didn't and the Royal Navy, according to the experts, would have staved off the attack.

Sorry we're not going to move the goal posts 6 - 12 months down the line because you want to so no it doesn't "stand to reason" at all but let's agree that things would have been a damned site harder.

The Royal Navy supremacy argument stands because, given the information we have from experts, the Royal Navy was the major barrier to a full on invasion of the Island.

 

[Angilion]

Without USA would us British people, definitely have been conquered ?

Or could we have defeated Hitler without them?

I think that the UK wouldn't have been conquered as such (at least not for years, if ever) but would probably have become sidelined as Germany strengthened its hold on conquered land and expanded elsewhere. I don't think the UK could have held up enough economically to fight effectively for much longer. With the UK more or less out of the war through not being able to make enough stuff quickly enough, much of the resistance to Germany would have collapsed everywhere apart from the USSR. Everywhere else was either too far away and/or not strong enough to fight alone. Germany couldn't have conquered Britain outright at that time, but with this scenario they wouldn't have to. They could conquer Britain or make it a de facto vassal state later.

Buying help from the USA cost the UK a vast amount, though. The USA had a seller's market and knew it. Not only money (the USA had far more of that than the UK anyway), but land, technology and influence. That extended past the war, e.g. controlled transonic flight was invented in Britain, but it was shut down by the UK government and given to the USA.

Obviously, it was in the best interests of the USA to do what they did. Not just to gain power while reducing Britain's power, but because they would have ended up fighting sooner or later and it was much better for them to fight sooner with allies and in other countries than alone and at home. If they got a chance to fight at all - Germany was working on a nuclear bomb and would probably have succeeded at some point if they weren't so hard pressed in the war. Likewise for long range missiles. They might have been able to nuke the USA by maybe 1950 and does anyone think Hitler would have refused to give that order?

EDIT: The post about the people at Bletchley Park not getting due credit reminds me of some other people who didn't get due credit - the sailors of the USA and Canadian merchant navies. Repeatedly crossing the Atlantic in civilian ships with the ever-present threat of German submarines was a very courageous thing to do.

 

[Sankari]

Russia played a greater part than the USA. Without Russia, Europe would have been lost.

 

[Efour]

The American lend lease project, food convoys and later Arial bombing campaigns contributed a huge amount to the end. Speeding it up.

The U-boat menice was severe at the start of the war but new tech, cracking the codes and better air coverage eventually calmed it down.

I don't think we the Brits would have won without the USA. There would have been multiple attempts to gain air superiority which would eventually Germany would get. I'm not sure UK would have been invaded but we would have had to severely scaled down our offensive stance and maybe sign a deal with hitler.

Russia would probably still overcome Germany.
But it would take a lot more time with no major allied Italian threat or threat from allied landings in the west. All German forces in the east although still heavily out gunned might have been able to achieve their goals before the Soviet war machine got into high gear.

Russia winning outright would have been the biggest disaster for europe.

Think of the USA in the Pacific too. A lot of British territory and even India was under threat from japan. We had pretty severe problems in that part of the empire.....