USA no big deal during WW11?

Question

I think it's time you yanks disabused yourselves of the notion that you 'saved' western civilisation from the barbarians during the 1940's in Europe.
Hitler had failed to conquer Russia and was in deep trouble, Britain was still fighting and had the support of its Commonwealth including Australia and India.
We were in trouble but the war was turning in our favour. We were obliged for your support but we paid dearly for that, only a few months ago were we able to pay off all the money we were indebted to you for.
In fact if you confined yourself to the Pacific Eastern Europe might possibly not have become dominated by the communists and the world would have been a better place.
We've seen what you've done on the battlefield since those times, particularly Vietnam and Iraq, and belive me, you're a burden for the rest of the world.
We admire your democracy but it's more capitalist than democratic, refer to South America for more details.

Answer 1

I think that the US was very important in winning in the European theatre. I think that without the manpower and military industries of the US that the war in Europe would have lasted much longer than it did. Would the Brits and the commonwealth have had enough troops to be in Italy and attach at Normandy at the same time?

I am not saying that Britian and the commonwealth could not do it on their own but it would have taken them a lot longer. The US army air corps was instrumental in disabling the German Industries. Would the RAF been able to muster that many air crews?

The US Navy escroted ships from North America and protected them from U -Boats in the Battle of the Atlantic. Would the Royal Navy and her allies have enough ships to do this?

The US aslo was shipping vast amounts of material to the UK before they entered the war. They provided everything except troops.

I think that you also forgot an important commonweath country...Canada. At the beggining of World War II Canada had a population of approiximately 11, 000,000 people. By the end of World War II there were about 1, 000,000 Canadians in uniform

By the end of WWII Canada had the worlds third largest surface navy. Canada trained all the commonwealth air crews, and almost all the lancaster bombers were made by AVRO aviation. Canada participated in the invasion of Sciliy and Italy. It also did the first large scale attack on France in the Dieppe raid in 1942. Canada took JUNO beach on D-DAY, secured the Antwerp for allied Shipping in the Battle of the Scheldt. Something that was overlooked by Montgomery who wanted to go right into Germany. Canada later freed Holland in the spring of 1945.

I think also that it is important to note that not everyone in US wanted to stop after defeating Germany. Patton wanted to re-arm the Germans and defeat the Soviet Communists. If he had his way Eastern Europe would have enjoyed the same freedoms as Western Europe. In additon without the MArshall Plan rebuildiing the economies of the European countries would have taken much longer than it did.

In short yes the UK and the Commonwealth could have defeated the Germans in Europe but it would have been a much longer war, and much more a war of attrition.

Answer 2

Hmm... I'll ignore that latter bit of what you're saying, and just deal with the main title. You're saying that the UK+ Commonwealth + Russia would have won WWII without American aid.

Russia was definitely key- if the Third Reich hadn't invaded the USSR, it could have steamrollered Britain- the Soviet armies enaged the Wehrmacht in a battle of attrition that their Western allies were loath to engage in after the horrors of WWI, and they tied up/eliminated a lot of German troops in the process. Without Russia and the US, Germany wins WWII.

With just Russia and the UK/empire against Germany, things might have been a bit different. There would have been less heat on the Western front, so Hitler could have put more troops up to try to stymie the soviets. The African campaign would have been a closer run thing, and even if British troops won it, rolling up Italy would have been harder. The D-day landings would have been a lot harder to pull off without US help- a shorter front, less breadth, fewer men on the ground, and thus more scope for Nazi fightback.

And man, what about the Pacific theatre? Empire defences of Singapore and Hong Kong, Burma were a mess. The Japanese Imperial Army, Navy and Airforce, unapposed by the US, would have been pretty nasty. They could have opened up a second Russian front coming from the East! (I know they did it once, but if they hadn't had to contend with the US armies, they could have done it a lot more seriously, pummeling Vladivostock, and perhaps swerving troops up through Manchuria. That would have made things easier for the Germans coming from the West, and might have brought the USSR down even. Empire troops alone couldn't have won the Pacific theatre, those Japanese meant business, and caught everyone off guard. Plus, without the US Manhatten project, the Nazis could have got the atomic bomb first- then it would have been, seriously, good-bye London.

So, you shouldn't necessarily think that US forces were no big deal in WWII. They meant a lot to the allied war effort- and if, for example, they had opted to ally with Germany rather than the UK, history would be different again. With Britain and Russia alone, even with India and Australia, the war would have been a lot harder to win for the allied side, and a lot easier for the axis powers.

Answer 3

During World War II USA was the only country that fought in all fronts :
Europe, North Africa, China, the Pacific, Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean, also sending ocean convoys to England, the Pacific, Russia, Africa, with billions of dollars in help to ALL the Allies.

Were it not for the US, England would not have held for so long. Russia received even more help thorough the port of Murmansk, and could hold on, reaching final victory over fascism.

Hard to thank french were very thankful in the words of General De Gaulle, Chang Kai Shek and also Winston Churchill recognized the gigantic war effort the US made to achieve final victory, among many other world leaders of the time, and reputed famous historians that by no means would agree with your unjust opinion.

The fact that later on US has not had success in other battlefields is not even a medium good argument.
Hannibal a great general also lost his last battles against
the Romans.
Waterloo was also the final defeat for Napoleon but under no circumstances do a defeat disqualify Napoleon or Hannibal, whatever wacky opinions, they will still be revered and studied in military Academies all over the world

Answer 4

Our gov'ts were working together before the US got involved. The British were appealing to the US for aid because they were openly admitting they could not sustain the bombing, u-boats, and just shear intensity of the war.

No, the US didnt walk in as a mesiah and fix everything, but manpower, industry, money, and technology were all provided.

As was said, the West did very little against the Germans at the end of WW2. The RAF and Army Air Corps basically just bombed things into submission so that the Russians would have as many men as possible after each battle to keep moving and destroy the Germans.

Had Hitler wanted to take Brittain it would have happened long before the bombings of London started. The only reason the UK was around to fight at the end of the war is because Hitler wanted to coexist with the British Empire.

Answer 5

Considering Britain's absolutely deplorable history of imperialism, including subjugating the Chinese with opium, it has been my opinion for many years that it would have been just for the US to wait until Germany had completely destroyed England before stepping in for the Atlantic and European fight. Imagine D-Day without US equipment and personnel. Sure, it's possible that Britain could have eventually stopped the Germans, but how many more lives would have been lost in that process? And what of stopping the Japanese? The UK didn't have the navy or the air force for that kind of operation.

Am I saying that the US did it alone? Hardly. But without the US, the outcome of WWII would have been drastically different. Who, by the way, would have stopped the Soviet Union from completely taking over Europe?

Answer 6

Even before the US officially entered WW2 the country was selling arms and supplies to France and England. American citizens volunteered as mecenaries in the RAF and the Chinese aircorps (the flying tigers). After the start of operation Barbarossa America began selling Stalin aircraft and other materials.

Without US intervention the U-boats would have eventually starved England into submission. Not to mention without US intervention in North Africa the victory at El Allamain wouldn't have had as much of an effect on that front, because the German and Italian forces there wouldn't have had to worry about their rear.

The US more or less defeated Japan by themselves, yes they had help from other nations too, but the main offensive actions were carried out by the marines and the navy.

Without the US army air corps German industry would barely have been effected. RAF night raids were nothing more than raids intended to discourage the German populace. WW2 aircraft had enough trouble finding and hitting targets in daylight; night raids merely targeted cities with the hope of hitting vital targets. The British could never have won air supremacy over Europe without American fighters.

The USSR was more instrumental than Britain and America in Europe. They abosrbed and reversed German advances, taking heavy casualties. Although they did the most to defeat Hitler, they'd have eventually lost in the east were it not for England and later American forces menacing Germany's wester and souther flanks. The mere possibility of an allied offensive forced Hitler to keep part of the German army in the west instead of throwing everything he had at Stalin's forces.

Hitler did more than any other person in the 1940's to seal Germany's defeat. He started the war before the German army was fully prepared; they relied heavily on horses for transport throughout the war and used Czech tanks in Poland. Hitler also canceled the Eruo-Bomber project, which if developed would have given Germany the equivalent of the B-24, thereby allowing him to destroy soviet and British industry. Hitler was also foolish to start a war with the soviets before securing peace with England, not to mention his pointless declaration of war agianst America (the reason we entered the yanks entered the European theatre in the first place.) His obsession with killing slavs and Jews distracted him from the war, and his incistence on self-propelled guns limited the availability of 2 of WW2's best tanks the King Tiger (Tiger II) and the Panther.

Answer 7

as ex 8th army Alamein and then to Italy i was attc to your 5th army to take Naples you'll get no criticisms from me or any of the guys that went through this with you and i know without you the world would be a different place today we wouldn't have made it but i wont let you guys bash us Brits we went through hell for two years and were practically starving even to 8 years after the war with out lease lend we would have starved but there's the rub we paid you dearly for your help and you were late coming and just a few months ago we paid you back the last penny!! the gold you took before the war ended we were on our knees/ broke but its all water under the bridge and i have no grudge i'm just happy to think USA/UK still go together and always will and there will always be family arguments but just accept it / God bless both countries

Answer 8

i agree with you mostly, refering to America today. but i think we did have a large hand in helping win the war. i don't like to think of it as an American led effort, though (maybe my views are not shared by the majority of the American public). i think of it more as a group effort, as if we weren't there the war would have lasted longer and might not have been as favorable of a turnout for the allies. but that is true for every ones involvement. without the support of everyone, the war would have turned out much differently... Hitler was as much to thank as anyone, because he would make such outragous military decesions that has no chance of winning (ie splitting his military into two aggressive fronts instead of concentrating on one front at a time). but had the war taken only a year longer, i belive it may have taken a turn, becasue the axis were devolping nucular weapons, jet fighters and long range bombers that could have struck the mainland US and deep into Russia...

Answer 9

The US has brainwashed itself, with motion pictures, into thinking it was and is the hero of all wars. I saw a movie once about the Bismarck and the British ship HMS Hood, strangely enough the Hood was crewed by Americans.

Answer 10

I agree with you that we've become more capitilistic, but your country isn't one to talk about being so great, especially in wwII, we would've rolled right through just about everything, if that sobby crying Monte didn't whine like a school about being apart of the war, and india, they couldn't wait for you guys to get out. Refer to the riots in india. Come on dude, you guys still have a figure who doesn't mean anything...i.e. the queen. Oh yeah and the crown jewels...um...stolen from...Taj Mahal in india....I guess another reason why the Indians are not to fond of the british