Had to rephrase this?

Question

Why did the Americans take control of the British during WW2? consdiering that we had been fighting since 1939 and the Americans since 1941, Why did the Americans lead D-Day AND the invasion of Italy in 1943?

We had been fighting from 1939, and so, do deserve more respect for our fighting memory! My Grandfather was a member of the Dunkrk Evacquation and was also a member of the British Desert Rats who fought at El Alamien. If he was still alive, he'd have a few things to say about your late entry into the war!

Answer 1

The American Gi's served as allies to the Brits.Without the logistics and manpower from Britain, the war effort would have been lost. The victory belongs to Britain.

It was the Brits who suffered and served for their country.No greater love has a an for his country than he lay down his life in service.

Answer 2

Americans never really took control of the British. I do realize that it could look that way from a British perspective, but that's not exactly what happened. At the beginning of WW2, Britain was still recovering from WW1. The British military had run out of resources long before D-Day and the invasion of Italy. The US was trying to stay out of the conflict, but Britain and France still needed help. FDR compromised by sending military supplies, until they were drawn into the conflict. As far as the American government was concerned, there was no reason for the US to join the conflict before Pearl Harbor and Hitler's declaration of war. Because most of the materials used for D-Day and the invasion of Italy were American materials, it may look as though they led the battles. However, what I learned in school and what most other American children learn if they have good history teachers, is that D-Day and Italy were collaborations between the military command of the US and Britain. Your grandfather was a great hero, and he does deserve respect.

(It's really funny trying to use the UK version of spell check! Please pardon my American spelling - I decided it was more authentic to keep it.)

Answer 3

To begin with, you are making a statement and then you want others to explain it. Not fair...

The U.S. was involved with The U.K. from the beginning. Under the program set down by President Roosevelt as America became the "arsenal for democracy" we supplied England with weapons and material.

Due to the tremendous outcry after WWI regarding the policy of isolationism and the League of Nations, America didn't want any part of world politics in the hopes Europe would/could solve their own problems. When the fresh troops from the U.S. finally entered the war, the British welcomed them with opened arms. There were no regrets at the time. Only that, the Americans were "over-paid, over-sexed and over here!".

After the 1941 German invasion of the Soviet Union, the Red Army had done the bulk of the fighting against Germany on the European mainland. In a joint statement with Stalin, the U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill had announced the "full understanding" was reached with regard to the urgent tasks of creating a Second Front in Europe in 1942.Churchill unofficially informed the Soviets in a memorandum handed to Molotov that the resources necessary for an invasion were lacking[6]. However, the announcement had some effect in an order by Hitler in which he ordered preparations for an Allied descent on Europe.

Because of the vastness of the Allied invasion of Normany, and the huge military and material committment, someone simply had to be in charge and Churchill and the other member nations in the Allied command welcomed the Americans in a joint effort to defeat the Third Reich. It worked and thats what counts. Many mistakes have been said about the Normandy invasion. But, it succeeded and that's the final measure of success.

However, I agree. There was a late entry into the War World II by the Americans. But, there was a strong conservative political philosophy that prevented the liberal President Roosevelt from entering the Second World War earlier. That was a mistake!

When the Allied forces finally liberated the concentration camps under the auspices of the Third Reich, a starving and near death prisoner in the camps angrily cried out...'What kept you!....What kept you!". And, during the trial of a member of the Nazi hierarchy, Adolph Eichmann, in Israel in the early 1960's, a former witness in the trial of Eichmann, to the mass intent of Eichman and the concentration camps, threw himself on the floor and began screaming.."I could understand if you were a Frankenstein or a monster or from another planet. But you are not. You are a human being. How could one human being treat and regard others they way you did. How could you even think like that?" ..The witness was dragged out of the courtroom by Israeli security court personnal from a grinning Eichmann sitting behind a see-through bullet proof enclosure

Many were fooled by the madness of the Third Reich. At the Nurenburg trails of the Nazi High Command, each defendant pleaded..."Nix shuldig". If members of the Axis powers were not guilty of the deaths of over 60 million people, then who was guilty. Who was responsible?

I think your question is legitimate but does not go to the heart of the issue and that is...Without American participation in the affairs of Europe, could/would tyranny raise it's ugly head, again?

I am sure your grandfather was a great man and would be very proud of you for asking that question on Yahoo Answers.

Answer 4

The USA wanted to steer clear of the war in Europe - as we have seen since - its bad for politicians when the bodies begin to arrive home. However, we [the British, Commonwealth and allies] were fighting on our own still weakened from the first World War. Eventually, the USA saw it would not be in their interest to let Britain sink. The old adage 'he who pays the piper , calls the tune!' is true - so America 'took over'. They provided armaments and provisions - this was not charity - we were made to pay top dollar for what was supplied. We only finished paying a few months ago!

and then there was all that manly ego as the generals hustled for position - boys will be boys - so they were all trying to take charge. In the end the American generals won. When you see all the back biting and bitching which went on behind the scenes - it serves to highlight the stupidity of war!

Answer 5

I don't know the exact details but by the time the Americans entered the war, the British forces and their allies were in pieces and the Americans were bringing weapons and vehicles that were in short supply for the Allies. The Americans had also been supplying the UK with food via transport ships.

I don't know if they 'took control' but I would say they had a strong hand in things and just took over.

British Regiments went on to win many decisive battles without the aid of the Americans.

Answer 6

You have to remember, England was at war on her own soil. They could little afford the loss of life, the cost of the war with all that was going on at home. The Brits fought as bravely as any other unit from anywhere else. They had more reason to fight. However, America, coming later to the war and with less at stake on its own soil was perhaps able to look at a larger picture overall, and make decisions based on the need of all. Also, truth to tell, America had more weaponry and manpower at her disposal. As history records it, America didn't "take over" so much as lead, with the graceful acquiescence and the willing help and partnership of such as Churchill.

Answer 7

Hello,
I easily got for free Axis and Allies here: http://j.mp/1BDxwxK

no surveys, no scams, just the full game!
You can pick to be either the Allied powers of Britain, Russia, and America, or instead opt to play as the Axis powers of Germany and Japan. Either way, this is a worldwide conflict where you'll have to learn to play strategically across two fronts, no matter who you’re playing as.
It's a must have game.

Answer 8

Don't forget the vast numbers of Australians, New Zealanders & Canadians who also helped Britian win the war. For the Australians it was to the detriment of their own country because Japan took advantage of all the troops being in Europe to attempt an invasion on them.

Answer 9

~Sorry to burst your bubble, but Brits were beaten. Churchill knew it and he acknowledged it. But for Lend-Lease and earlier aid programs (in violation of professed American neutrality) Great Britain could not have sustained the fight. Churchill and Roosevelt jointly selected Eisenhower as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe. The role was not usurped by the Americans.

In any case, the US and Great Britain only played a minor role in the defeat of the Nazis. Together, in both the European and Pacific theaters, they lost fewer than a million troops in WWII, compared to the 10 million Soviet dead (plus another 15 million civilians). The turning point of the war was the failure of Operation Barbarossa, and the war was effectively over when Paulus surrendered the German 6th Army to the Soviets at Stalingrad. Neither Britain nor the US had any role in either campaign.

The Brits took Tobruk from the Italians. Rommel took it back. The Afrika Corps quit El Alamein when US and British troops launched Operation Torch. When the landings happened in Oran, Morocco and Algiers and the French decided not to fight but instead joined the Allies, Rommel knew better than to fight a two front war in Africa. He had no choice. His reserves and spares were being diverted to the Eastern front where the real fighting was.

Churchill himself announced that the British could not win a war against the Germans on the continent. When Roosevelt assured Molotov in '42 that the US would open a European front, Churchill talked him out of it and thus was born Operation Torch. By the time Overlord rolled around, the Germans were out of replacement troops, had no industrial base, had lost all their essential resources, and had few functioning factories. The best German commanders and the best troops were still fighting the Red Army in the East and the Soviets continued grinding their way to Berlin against them.

Dunkirk was a great accomplishment, but it was, after all, a retreat after a serious defeat. El Alamien was essentially a stalemate until Rommel lost the means to fight effectively. It wasn't the American and British troops that did that - he and his campaign necessarily had to play second fiddle to the real war in Russia.

The most successful Allied commander in Africa before the Torch landings was Sir Leslie James Morshead. He commanded the Australian troops at the Siege of Tobruk and Second Battle of El Alamein and his Aussies inflicted crushing defeats on the German Afrika Korps. Monty got the glory but Ming the Merciless (Morshead) did the work.

The US was trying to stay out of the war. The draft was extended in August 1941 by a mere one vote. The US did not have a standing army to speak of. US tactics were outdated. US weapons, particularly aircraft and tanks (the key weapons of warfare in the '40s) was grossly inferior to anything the Germans, Soviets, Brits and Japanese had. Had Pearl Harbor not been attacked, the US would not have joined the war as early as it did. When Lend-Lease was extended to include the Soviets, Hitler declared war on the US. In neither theater did the US rush in voluntarily. However, once the industrial might of the US was brought to bear (and remember, the US was the only major combatant whose home shores were virtually unscathed by the hostilities and whose factories could operate at peak performance without the threat of daily bombings), the US almost caught up. With the influx of war materials more than troops, the US helped turn the tide in the West, but Stalin would have beaten the Wehrmacht regardless.

I suspect what your grandfather would say is, "Thank you FDR and USA for bailing us out and helping us survive, late and reluctant as you were, but thank you more, comrade Red Army for beating the Nazis."

Answer 10

Because Audrey Murphy And John Wayne were winning the war for us?