Could America have won WW2 without Britain?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Rakas21
We lost an empire and saw 45 years of the Cold War.
We didn't lose WW2 but I don't consider it to be a victory.
We didn't lose WW2 but I don't consider it to be a victory.
We put the Jerries in their place, and we did not cause a Cold War we lost an empire through choice because of the Americans. They are sole reason for any Asian unrest after WW2
Original post by That Bearded Man
had not controlled a single branch of the government for nearly a decade, the US being ruled by a radical leftist president who was rapidly abridging the constitution to introduce communist-style economic reforms.
Bear in mind that at this time the US was the world's second most leftwing power after the USSR and was more leftwing than the UK or France; the re-organisation to a social democrat Europe and a conservative US doesn't happen until the late 1940s and 1950s.
firmly and avidly supported Nazi Germany
That is a bizarre and totally ahistorical claim. The US had an isolationist right which was if anything more dissimilar to Nazi Germany than the government. Germany had essentially no direct influence in the US.
but communism remained a much feared anti-US interest nation.
I can't parse this statement but if you mean that the USSR was more of a threat to the US than Nazi Germany, that is certainly untrue and no one would have thought that at the time. The USSR in 1939 had essentially no navy, no sea access and, prior to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, was hostile to every country with which it shared a border and to the UK which controlled the world's sea lanes. The USSR was no threat to the USA whatsoever until (and because of) the end of WWII.
Additionally, the UK is more an issue of immediate survival, having oversaw the return of Austria, Sudentenland, Polish Corridor and czechoslovakia, then the invasion of Poland, this surely is evidence that any alliance with Hitler isn't worth the paper it's written on. I don't think Britain would fall for the same trick as the soviets did.
My point is that Nazi Germany still appeared to Britain as more expansive than the USSR, thus the more immediate threat.
My point is that Nazi Germany still appeared to Britain as more expansive than the USSR, thus the more immediate threat.
I agree, which is why the UK chose to declare war on Germany and not the USSR (or both!) when they both invaded Poland. I do not necessarily disagree with that decision either, although with hindsight it was clearly a mistake.
It's nonetheless much more likely that the UK would have allied with Germany against the USSR (for instance if the USSR had launched the Winter War in 1938 or initiated its own attack on Poland before Germany) than that the US would have done so. In such a situation it is not a question of trust but rather of responding to a situation that exists regardless of Britain's actions in the best possible way - exactly the same way Britain found herself in an alliance of convenience with the USSR in 1941.
The US on the other hand didn't enter a single war of its own volition in this period. It remains open question whether the US would ever have joined the European conflict directly if Hitler hadn't declared war on them. The US even declined to declare war on Finland which was a German ally and to reciprocate a declaration of war by Siam which directly attacked US forces!
Good point about France, but I don't see why the US would have backed them to fend off Germany.
I didn't say it would have; I am also not sure what you are referring to here.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by NigelSavageFLK82
We put the Jerries in their place, and we did not cause a Cold War we lost an empire through choice because of the Americans. They are sole reason for any Asian unrest after WW2
I agree that the imperial question is tangential but ultimately all we succeeded in doing was giving Eastern Europe to Stalin instead of Hitler. Was that an improvement? Maybe, maybe not. I suspect that Hitler would have caused more damage (i.e. genocide instead of stagnation and thought police) but for that reason would have been less dangerous in the medium term: Naziism would not have spread to China or India because Naziism held that Chinese and Indians should all be killed and devouring the USSR would have cost trillions of Reichsmarks and millions of lives even after the 'victory' in the war. The USSR established a system of clients that materially added to its strength and its ideology was appealing to neutrals and even to our own establishment.
I would say that in terms of achieving its own objectives Britain lost WWII in June 1940 with the fall of France. We regard the war with hindsight as a victory because our position in June 1940 was so awful that just surviving as a sovereign country came to be considered an objective in itself. Ask people in 1939 and they likely would have told you that the fall of France in such a short time was impossible and the worst imaginable outcome would be something like ceding Poland, Belgium and Alsace-Lorraine to Germany.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Observatory
had not controlled a single branch of the government for nearly a decade, the US being ruled by a radical leftist president who was rapidly abridging the constitution to introduce communist-style economic reforms.
Bear in mind that at this time the US was the world's second most leftwing power after the USSR and was more leftwing than the UK or France; the re-organisation to a social democrat Europe and a conservative US doesn't happen until the late 1940s and 1950s.
That is a bizarre and totally ahistorical claim. The US had an isolationist right which was if anything more dissimilar to Nazi Germany than the government. Germany had essentially no direct influence in the US.
I can't parse this statement but if you mean that the USSR was more of a threat to the US than Nazi Germany, that is certainly untrue and no one would have thought that at the time. The USSR in 1939 had essentially no navy, no sea access and, prior to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, was hostile to every country with which it shared a border and to the UK which controlled the world's sea lanes. The USSR was no threat to the USA whatsoever until (and because of) the end of WWII.
I agree, which is why the UK chose to declare war on Germany and not the USSR (or both!) when they both invaded Poland. I do not necessarily disagree with that decision either, although with hindsight it was clearly a mistake.
It's nonetheless much more likely that the UK would have allied with Germany against the USSR (for instance if the USSR had launched the Winter War in 1938 or initiated its own attack on Poland before Germany) than that the US would have done so. In such a situation it is not a question of trust but rather of responding to a situation that exists regardless of Britain's actions in the best possible way - exactly the same way Britain found herself in an alliance of convenience with the USSR in 1941.
The US on the other hand didn't enter a single war of its own volition in this period. It remains open question whether the US would ever have joined the European conflict directly if Hitler hadn't declared war on them. The US even declined to declare war on Finland which was a German ally and to reciprocate a declaration of war by Siam which directly attacked US forces!
I didn't say it would have; I am also not sure what you are referring to here.
Bear in mind that at this time the US was the world's second most leftwing power after the USSR and was more leftwing than the UK or France; the re-organisation to a social democrat Europe and a conservative US doesn't happen until the late 1940s and 1950s.
That is a bizarre and totally ahistorical claim. The US had an isolationist right which was if anything more dissimilar to Nazi Germany than the government. Germany had essentially no direct influence in the US.
I can't parse this statement but if you mean that the USSR was more of a threat to the US than Nazi Germany, that is certainly untrue and no one would have thought that at the time. The USSR in 1939 had essentially no navy, no sea access and, prior to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, was hostile to every country with which it shared a border and to the UK which controlled the world's sea lanes. The USSR was no threat to the USA whatsoever until (and because of) the end of WWII.
I agree, which is why the UK chose to declare war on Germany and not the USSR (or both!) when they both invaded Poland. I do not necessarily disagree with that decision either, although with hindsight it was clearly a mistake.
It's nonetheless much more likely that the UK would have allied with Germany against the USSR (for instance if the USSR had launched the Winter War in 1938 or initiated its own attack on Poland before Germany) than that the US would have done so. In such a situation it is not a question of trust but rather of responding to a situation that exists regardless of Britain's actions in the best possible way - exactly the same way Britain found herself in an alliance of convenience with the USSR in 1941.
The US on the other hand didn't enter a single war of its own volition in this period. It remains open question whether the US would ever have joined the European conflict directly if Hitler hadn't declared war on them. The US even declined to declare war on Finland which was a German ally and to reciprocate a declaration of war by Siam which directly attacked US forces!
I didn't say it would have; I am also not sure what you are referring to here.
And was eventually replaced by Truman, instead of the left wing Henry Wallace. You clearly don't appreciate the significant effect that corporate influence had on politics in the United States, the same effect that was used during the cold war to prop up dictators in the Middle East, Latin and Southern America and Asia. Unlike those nations, several corporations had strong specific ties to Germany, supported Nazi themes including White Supremacy and anti-semitism, backed by Henry Ford, Charles Lindburgh and media mogul William Hearst, who portrayed Hitler and the necessary protector of the US and Europe from communism. It was this sentiment that actually motivated America's isolationism in the first place, hence they probably would have stayed so if not for Germany's declaration of War.
The only difference is Roosevelt, and as I speculate, it was not outlandish to believe that Roosevelt would have been removed as President.
Do you seriously think that multinationals have no influence on American politics?
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/american_supporters_of_the_europ.htm
A pretty good outlne of the Nazi influence in the US.
Original post by Observatory
had not controlled a single branch of the government for nearly a decade, the US being ruled by a radical leftist president who was rapidly abridging the constitution to introduce communist-style economic reforms.
Bear in mind that at this time the US was the world's second most leftwing power after the USSR and was more leftwing than the UK or France; the re-organisation to a social democrat Europe and a conservative US doesn't happen until the late 1940s and 1950s.
That is a bizarre and totally ahistorical claim. The US had an isolationist right which was if anything more dissimilar to Nazi Germany than the government. Germany had essentially no direct influence in the US.
I can't parse this statement but if you mean that the USSR was more of a threat to the US than Nazi Germany, that is certainly untrue and no one would have thought that at the time. The USSR in 1939 had essentially no navy, no sea access and, prior to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, was hostile to every country with which it shared a border and to the UK which controlled the world's sea lanes. The USSR was no threat to the USA whatsoever until (and because of) the end of WWII.
I agree, which is why the UK chose to declare war on Germany and not the USSR (or both!) when they both invaded Poland. I do not necessarily disagree with that decision either, although with hindsight it was clearly a mistake.
It's nonetheless much more likely that the UK would have allied with Germany against the USSR (for instance if the USSR had launched the Winter War in 1938 or initiated its own attack on Poland before Germany) than that the US would have done so. In such a situation it is not a question of trust but rather of responding to a situation that exists regardless of Britain's actions in the best possible way - exactly the same way Britain found herself in an alliance of convenience with the USSR in 1941.
The US on the other hand didn't enter a single war of its own volition in this period. It remains open question whether the US would ever have joined the European conflict directly if Hitler hadn't declared war on them. The US even declined to declare war on Finland which was a German ally and to reciprocate a declaration of war by Siam which directly attacked US forces!
I didn't say it would have; I am also not sure what you are referring to here.
Bear in mind that at this time the US was the world's second most leftwing power after the USSR and was more leftwing than the UK or France; the re-organisation to a social democrat Europe and a conservative US doesn't happen until the late 1940s and 1950s.
That is a bizarre and totally ahistorical claim. The US had an isolationist right which was if anything more dissimilar to Nazi Germany than the government. Germany had essentially no direct influence in the US.
I can't parse this statement but if you mean that the USSR was more of a threat to the US than Nazi Germany, that is certainly untrue and no one would have thought that at the time. The USSR in 1939 had essentially no navy, no sea access and, prior to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, was hostile to every country with which it shared a border and to the UK which controlled the world's sea lanes. The USSR was no threat to the USA whatsoever until (and because of) the end of WWII.
I agree, which is why the UK chose to declare war on Germany and not the USSR (or both!) when they both invaded Poland. I do not necessarily disagree with that decision either, although with hindsight it was clearly a mistake.
It's nonetheless much more likely that the UK would have allied with Germany against the USSR (for instance if the USSR had launched the Winter War in 1938 or initiated its own attack on Poland before Germany) than that the US would have done so. In such a situation it is not a question of trust but rather of responding to a situation that exists regardless of Britain's actions in the best possible way - exactly the same way Britain found herself in an alliance of convenience with the USSR in 1941.
The US on the other hand didn't enter a single war of its own volition in this period. It remains open question whether the US would ever have joined the European conflict directly if Hitler hadn't declared war on them. The US even declined to declare war on Finland which was a German ally and to reciprocate a declaration of war by Siam which directly attacked US forces!
I didn't say it would have; I am also not sure what you are referring to here.
Ah, I see our disagreement here, by ally with Germany I mean "not" intervene in Europe, hence the isolationist right would have supported a non-aggression pact with Germany, I don't believe that Germany would have invaded the USSR and allied with Germany in that case. But no, there was a stronger pro-Germany sentiment than pro-USSR in the US, so without declaration of War, if push came to shove, I think they would have struggled to side with the Soviets.
And no, the Soviet Union has rarely been a threat to the US, a perceived threat however yes in the form of communism.
And I think Britain did right actually in WW2, the Soviet Union was a tough opponent and by allying with them it guaranteed they would win the war with Germany. Amputating your leg to save your life, so to speak.
Original post by Observatory
I agree that the imperial question is tangential but ultimately all we succeeded in doing was giving Eastern Europe to Stalin instead of Hitler. Was that an improvement? Maybe, maybe not. I suspect that Hitler would have caused more damage (i.e. genocide instead of stagnation and thought police) but for that reason would have been less dangerous in the medium term: Naziism would not have spread to China or India because Naziism held that Chinese and Indians should all be killed and devouring the USSR would have cost trillions of Reichsmarks and millions of lives even after the 'victory' in the war. The USSR established a system of clients that materially added to its strength and its ideology was appealing to neutrals and even to our own establishment.
I would say that in terms of achieving its own objectives Britain lost WWII in June 1940 with the fall of France. We regard the war with hindsight as a victory because our position in June 1940 was so awful that just surviving as a sovereign country came to be considered an objective in itself. Ask people in 1939 and they likely would have told you that the fall of France in such a short time was impossible and the worst imaginable outcome would be something like ceding Poland, Belgium and Alsace-Lorraine to Germany.
I would say that in terms of achieving its own objectives Britain lost WWII in June 1940 with the fall of France. We regard the war with hindsight as a victory because our position in June 1940 was so awful that just surviving as a sovereign country came to be considered an objective in itself. Ask people in 1939 and they likely would have told you that the fall of France in such a short time was impossible and the worst imaginable outcome would be something like ceding Poland, Belgium and Alsace-Lorraine to Germany.
Naziism could not have spread through our empire, the Indians would not allow it. Africa would not be taken because of Montys boys. Of course morale was low in the early 40s but the battle of Britain gave us air superiority, the Commando raids off the coast of France and the invasion of Italy (which would have been successful without american airborne regiments) read up on commando raids and youll notice we were in france before pearl habour
I largely agree that Britain was not under any serious threat of losing its sovereignty in the short term in 1940. However the perception was there and largely remains there.
In the medium term, a German victory in Europe would have placed Britain in a very precarious position because Germany would have been able to build up a very large air force, and a fleet in the safety Baltic. This would have taken several years but we could not ultimately have either prevented their build-up or matched it. British invasion of the continent would certainly have been impossible.
The restoration of a free European continent was not an obviously possible outcome in 1940.
In the medium term, a German victory in Europe would have placed Britain in a very precarious position because Germany would have been able to build up a very large air force, and a fleet in the safety Baltic. This would have taken several years but we could not ultimately have either prevented their build-up or matched it. British invasion of the continent would certainly have been impossible.
The restoration of a free European continent was not an obviously possible outcome in 1940.
I'm not sure how D-Day would have been possible without Britain as a launch pad, I'm not sure that the war could have been won without a D-Day-like maneuver, and i'm not sure that anything as impactful could have been launched from elsewhere... I think without Britain Europe would have been a lost cause, Russia would have beaten Germany and from there who knows? America nukes Moscow after Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Obviously it's big time conjecture but it may have gone that way, I think Britain's role is often underplayed.
Original post by Jjj90
I'm not sure how D-Day would have been possible without Britain as a launch pad, I'm not sure that the war could have been won without a D-Day-like maneuver, and i'm not sure that anything as impactful could have been launched from elsewhere... I think without Britain Europe would have been a lost cause, Russia would have beaten Germany and from there who knows? America nukes Moscow after Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Obviously it's big time conjecture but it may have gone that way, I think Britain's role is often underplayed.
Not necessarily.
1) Africa could have been used to launch a D Day from the south. The Germans only occupied the coastal perimeter or North Africa going not more than about 300 miles inland. US, Australian, Indian and other allied troops could have massed in the Sahara to launch a massive offensive removing Nazis from Africa before crossing the Mediterranean and into France and Italy.
Or
2) US and allies support could have helped the Spanish communists remove Franco from power, thus allowing allied forces to mass and occupy Spain and Portugal. They could then have launched a D Day attack on the west coast of France from Northern Spain and also a seaward attack on the South of France from the Mediterranean coast of Spain. As well as crossing the Pyrenees.
3) An allied winter attack could have been made from the Arctic circle launched from Canada. It would have been dark in Northern Scandanavia all day long and the Germans would have been less prepared. Most the sea would have been frozen allowing vehicles to cross. Airfields could have been set up on the arctic ice to launch bombing raids deep into German occupied territory.
Original post by Howard
No. The US launched their European campaign from the UK. Had the UK fallen to Germany that wouldn't have been possible.
Large parts of Southern Europe were liberated from the Nazis by US and allied troops in North Africa having taken on Rommels forces. A South European campaign could still have won the war without the Normandy invasion, it would just have taken a lot longer.
Original post by Ambitious1999
Large parts of Southern Europe were liberated from the Nazis by US and allied troops in North Africa having taken on Rommels forces. A South European campaign could still have won the war without the Normandy invasion, it would just have taken a lot longer.
A reasonable observation except that had the UK fallen to Hitler earlier enough Monty wouldn't have been in Africa anyway. He didn't take command out there until August 1942.
That wouldn't happen, the technology for the nuclear bomb, along with many other inventions including jet engines was given to the US by the British. Therefore no jet engines, no nuclear bomb, no airborne radar etc. The manhattan project started as Tube Alloys. Research the Tizzard Mission.
I don't think so, Britain at the time had one of the strongest forces which definitely helped America.
British Empire stood alone for 2 years won the battle of Britain d day landings wouldn't of happend if there was not British victory then british Empire had 3 d day landings America had 2 how can you say Britain's role was not significant
2 of the 5 d day landings were all British and 1 other was British Empire Canadian in charge was a British general
In 1939 Britain either directly owned or had controlling interests in around 26% of the entire earth's population.When Britain started receiving material from the USA it was not for any altruistic motives, but had to be paid for, and paid for well. An entire amount of materials sent from the USA to Britain was produced by British owned factories and forges in America, in fact Britain was and continued to be one of the major investors in American aluminium and steel production.
I believe although kept under wraps understandably for many years, Britain had a plan B had not the USA or Russia became involved : a total naval blockade of Germany coupled with biological attacks on the German farm and croplands.
Could we or the USA won through without each other : one of the big if or buts I think. Maybe, but at much greater human and material cost and for a lot longer than '45.
Could Russia have survived without the Arctic UK convoys : I would have thought most likely not.
Could have the USA have sucessfully pulled off D-Day without RN back up : I would have thought certainly not.
Original post by UnclePete In 1939 Britain either directly owned or had controlling interests in around 26% of the entire earth's population.
When Britain started receiving material from the USA it was not for any altruistic motives, but had to be paid for, and paid for well. An entire amount of materials sent from the USA to Britain was produced by British owned factories and forges in America, in fact Britain was and continued to be one of the major investors in American aluminium and steel production.
I believe although kept under wraps understandably for many years, Britain had a plan B had not the USA or Russia became involved : a total naval blockade of Germany coupled with biological attacks on the German farm and croplands.
Could we or the USA won through without each other : one of the big if or buts I think. Maybe, but at much greater human and material cost and for a lot longer than '45.
Could Russia have survived without the Arctic UK convoys : I would have thought most likely not.
Could have the USA have sucessfully pulled off D-Day without RN back up : I would have thought certainly not.
In 1939 Britain either directly owned or had controlling interests in around 26% of the entire earth's population.When Britain started receiving material from the USA it was not for any altruistic motives, but had to be paid for, and paid for well. An entire amount of materials sent from the USA to Britain was produced by British owned factories and forges in America, in fact Britain was and continued to be one of the major investors in American aluminium and steel production.
I believe although kept under wraps understandably for many years, Britain had a plan B had not the USA or Russia became involved : a total naval blockade of Germany coupled with biological attacks on the German farm and croplands.
Could we or the USA won through without each other : one of the big if or buts I think. Maybe, but at much greater human and material cost and for a lot longer than '45.
Could Russia have survived without the Arctic UK convoys : I would have thought most likely not.
Could have the USA have sucessfully pulled off D-Day without RN back up : I would have thought certainly not.
To be fair, the supplies being sent up through Iran would probably have been able to compensate, to a degree, for the convoys
as orhers mentioned, d-day would have been impossible. the north west would probably have been secure for axis powers while north eastern parts of north america would have had greater risk to submarine harassment. Id say crossing the north atlantic would be a US priority but not a means to invasion or victory. instead, fighting for air and sea dominance is key to barracade islands. cutting off supply may not be realistic due to submarines, but I think ideal because high casualties at seas.
us main objective would be through africa and then italy. this would allow allied forces to assist each other with greater efficiency despite giving a large single line for axis to defend against. relying on russia would be more important.
this probably would generate a ww1 type of trench warfare but include more city to city fighting.
with uk captured, this may influnce portugese/spain neutrality. we may assume that with hitlers tactics to bomb england into submission, there may be well to nothing left when it comes to cities, military, etc. resistamce fighting may be limited to none. nuetral countries may want to join if things were less volitile in their own countries.
ireland is a wild card. may have still remained neutral which could negotiate either way to get north ireland. which could be last stronghold of the uk.
i cant think of any invasion ideas from german stand point into america. i feel like a truce would occur once uk is taken to cool things off. like with russia. the plan would be to focus in small areas before going big.
us main objective would be through africa and then italy. this would allow allied forces to assist each other with greater efficiency despite giving a large single line for axis to defend against. relying on russia would be more important.
this probably would generate a ww1 type of trench warfare but include more city to city fighting.
with uk captured, this may influnce portugese/spain neutrality. we may assume that with hitlers tactics to bomb england into submission, there may be well to nothing left when it comes to cities, military, etc. resistamce fighting may be limited to none. nuetral countries may want to join if things were less volitile in their own countries.
ireland is a wild card. may have still remained neutral which could negotiate either way to get north ireland. which could be last stronghold of the uk.
i cant think of any invasion ideas from german stand point into america. i feel like a truce would occur once uk is taken to cool things off. like with russia. the plan would be to focus in small areas before going big.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Is Israel winning
- Need advice from ivy students!
- AQA A Level History Coursework Help
- Who do you think is the best military commander ever?
- GSCE Cold war question help
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- Uk is a backwards aristocratic society
- A-level History Study Group 2023-2024
- a level history - edexcel cold war coursework
- Could Britain get a US trade deal if Trump wins?
- Edexcel A Level History American Dream Essay
- Should i vote Labour?
- Poetry essay feedback needed!! (A-Level)
- Is Messi now the undisputed greatest of all time?
- What do you think will happen to Donald the dump Trump?
- History Edexcel A level Britain Transformed and USA Conformity and Challenge
- Which country has the best literature?
- Of Mice And Men GCSE Essays
- Galleries worth the visit in London for students
- Edexcel A Level History Paper 1 (9HI0 1A-1H) - 24th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
