Could Britain have won WW2 without America?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by beetroot4000, Jun 23, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I hope I don't get called all sorts of profane names for this, but its something I'd like Arrse members views on.

    You hear all over the net of Americans claiming they won the second world war and Britain helped a little, but what is the view of some of you more informed people?

    With the likes of ULTRA, the Battle of Britain, Bomber command, and British victories in the Atlantic and Africa.
    Could they have pulled it off?
  2. No we didn't have the Materials that the yanks sold us or the production capacity.
  3. If, but, maybe.

    Ummm... I'm actually tempted towards a "yes, at some point"

    In regard to materials, frankly we had access to more than the nazis.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Unless you are talking about stockings, it's materiel.

    <<Pedantic head off>>
    • Like Like x 3
  5. If your talking about raw materials, the stuff you make tanks out of it's material.
    Tanks on the other hand are materiel.

    <<pedantic head cannot be unmounted, no other file system available>>
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Of course we could, but it wouldn't have been so much fun without them.

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 1
  7. Which part of America? The part north of 49° pulled your biscuits out of the fire a few times over the last 100+ years, and has not danced about the campfire a great deal in celebration of the fact.
    • Like Like x 3
  8. Just wondering, and this includes the USAAF but did Bomber Command and the 8th & 15th USAAF really destroy german production badly enough to warrant the loss of US/Allied Lives among the aircrews? IIRC even the first Dam buster raid only put those dams out of commission a short time. Was it value for lives lost?
  9. It's a French word anyway.

    <<Google head off>>
  10. The Strategic Bombing Survey attempts to answer that question, it runs to 208 volumes for the European Theatre.
  11. Note- this includes the substances used to make tanks.

    Note- This includes tanks.


    Is grammatically correct, even if not referring to stockings. And as the Yanks sold us both materials and materiel is historically correct also, if not entirely inclusive.

    • Like Like x 1
  12. Britain didn't win the war alone, we won it with the help of our allies. The Americans were a very large part of that, but I can't quote figures. We had Canadians, Austrailans and some Europeans, some Irish too, and no doubt I've missed out a great many others. The American contribution to the war was so huge that we could not have managed without it. We certainly could never have mounted a sucessful invasion like we did on D day without them.
  13. As said, possibly, at some point, if material and materiel aid still came through. But it would have lead to a much longer and bloodier war, since I believe that it would take bigger, possibly SOE/similar controlled risings by the people in all of the occupied countries due to less manpower available for the Overlord equivalent(s), cue a hundred Oradour-sur-Glanes and Warszavas all over western Europe, Denmark and Norway.

    Also, taken into considerations the fatigue and caution/measures due to the fatigue in the British forces on the continent in late 44/45, the Russians could have ended up either with all of Germany or their own base areas very close to what became the western GDR border inside western territory.
  14. You were doing so well too.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. There was a sort of fetid inevitability about that.
    • Like Like x 2