WW2 without the US??

#4
WW2 without the US? Like '39-41 you mean?
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#5
No interesting ideas just what if's

Points to note (I'll be brief there are better qualified on here than me)

As per usual everyone thinks that nothing could be achieved without the Yanks

The yanks didn't give us anything it was all bought and paid for
We also supplied equipment to the USSR
Alot of the war winning US kit was built to British design and specifaction
The Mustang and Sherman all came out of work carried out for the British to their requirments
The best allied tank of the war was the T 34/76 made in the USSR

We had a strong Navy and RAF and we were making gains on land in the middle east
Sure we had set backs but so did everyone else
The Navy were getting on top of the U Boat
Us and the Germans were the most technoligically advanced nations on the earth
We gave the US jet engines etc
Germany was no closer to bulding a bomb than us our scientists were in New Mexico with Oppenhiemer
We would still have carried out night bombing and the Lancaster carried double the load of a B17 so we could still inflict a lot of damage

We probably would have lost out to the Japenese but once Germany was beat us and the USSR would have turned on them


We maybe wouldn't have won and probably there wouldn't have bee no second front but the image of us starving and the US saving us from speaking German is a crock of sh1t

If the US had sat out the war they wouldn't have been a super power
They wouldn't have got their hands on the Germans that put them into space for a start all that would have gone to us and the USSR

Remember The US never declared war on Germany - Hitler declared war on them
Ford and GM continued building vehicles in German factories throughout the war and sued the allies for damages after we bombed their factories

Don't mean this to be a Yank bashing thread but this notion nothing could be acheived without them is annoying
 
#7
What would wartime London have been like without the G.Is? This odd cove Crisp has an unusual take on the greatest generation:
nto the feast of love and death that St. Adolf had set before the palates of the English - parched these long dark twenty-five years - Mr. Roosevelt began, with Olympian hands, to shower the American forces. This brand new army of (no) occupation flowed through the streets of London like cream on strawberries, like melted butter over green peas. Labelled "with love from Uncle Sam" and packaged in uniforms so tight that in them their owners could fight for nothing but their honor, these "bundles for Britain" leaned against the lamp posts of Shaftesbury Avenue or lolled on the steps of thin-lipped statues of dead English statesmen. As they sat in cafés or stood in the pubs, their bodies bulged through every straining khaki fiber toward our feverish hands. Their voices were like warm milk, their skins as flawless as expensive India rubber, and their eyes as beautiful as glass. Above all it was the liberality of their natures that was so marvellous. Never in the history of sex was so much offered to so many by so few.
 
#9
I think it would have drawn to a stalemate with Germany holding the ground they had taken.

Stalin was pushing for a second front to be opened. Hitler was holding out so that he could sue for peace with Stalin. Churchill was reluctant to undertake D Day in 1944 feeling that more preperation was required and knowing that the Atom bomb was coming on line could save many allied lives. Without the yanks D-day would not have happened. The Italians would have kept us occupied on another front, the Japs would have been well embedded and threatening our southern hemisphere allies and as we all know they would have never given up during convential warfare.

Can't we just call it a good team effort.
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#10
slick said:
TBS, thought provoking but what about boots on the ground :?
You can't win a war without boots on the ground as we are proving today
My point is we weren't finished or starving waiting for the U.S. to save us

The key for me is the Japanese
If the Japanese don't attack Pearl Harbor and then across Singapore etc then we have more men available from overseas garrisons
It's unlikely that the Italians would have had a pop again in the western desert
Our Navy was strong and the RAF where attacking Germany every night
Hitler once he failed to finish the USSR was always done for
The question is where would the USSR stop?
I suspect at some point Hitler would have had to have made peace overtones to the UK and Europe in order to gather his Army to face Stalin

Remember Churchill was a fan of neither Stalin or Hitler would he have accepted a chance to occupy parts of Europe whilst the USSR and Germany destroyed each other

Alot of people in Germany where hoping we and the U,.S. would join Germany to atack Russia

Yes we probably would have needed loans and equipment but as I said the whole key to it is the Japanese either way the Germans couldn't fight on two fronts plus the Desert etc

Another question is had Hitler and the Nazi's not been so anti semitic would the brains who worked on the Manhatten project have stayed in Germany
Oppenheimer was a U.S. born citizen but educated in Germany under some of there leading physic proffessors
IIRC it was a couple of Brits who first split the atom so we may have got the bomb first
 

Alsacien

MIA
Moderator
#12
dingerr said:
I think it would have drawn to a stalemate with Germany holding the ground they had taken.

Stalin was pushing for a second front to be opened. Hitler was holding out so that he could sue for peace with Stalin. Churchill was reluctant to undertake D Day in 1944 feeling that more preperation was required and knowing that the Atom bomb was coming on line could save many allied lives. Without the yanks D-day would not have happened. The Italians would have kept us occupied on another front, the Japs would have been well embedded and threatening our southern hemisphere allies and as we all know they would have never given up during convential warfare.

Can't we just call it a good team effort.
Germany could not have contained USSR in the longer term - for sure you would be ordering a Guiness in Russian at its place of manufacture...
 
#13
Alsacien said:
Germany could not have contained USSR in the longer term - for sure you would be ordering a Guiness in Russian at its place of manufacture...
Ivan would have had to cross the Channel for that. From what I've read they were even less prepared to do that than Germany were.

I think that we would eventually have won the war without the US. That's assuming Japan didn't get involved of course - although their involvement practically guarantees US involvement.
 
#14
A history Professor at my last Uni always stated that anyone who thinks that Britain would have still won WW2 if the US had not joined are just quite simply incorrect and are blurred by their national pride and percieved long term capabilities and resources of the Armed Forces at that time.
 
#15
As usual, not mentioned is Britain’s ‘backhand’, largely being the task of the SOE. Whatever Britain’s capability in table-top war, we foresaw and believed in the collapse of the German occupation in occupied territories. This could come about in several ways or any combination of them. German overstretch, decline of will and morale, anarchy, insurrection, usurpation. The table-top element would largely be provided by the Sovies in the East, and Britain made contingencies to exploit/support German collapse/overthrow in Western Europe, and then reinforce and expand any bridgehead wherever and whenever it occurred. Would be a longer war, but should be less costly to us?

However, when Sam was bankrolling the enterprise, they insisted on table-top as the fastest and most efficient way to conclude matters – also, of course, inevitably the most costly.

No.9
 
#17
Boots on the ground? Here's an interesting extract from a little known book called " El Alamein, a tank soldier's story" by Arthur Reddish.

...."The first two summers of ww2 saw German panzer-led blitzkriegs overwhelmingly successful in Western Europe, the Balkans and on the Russian front. This led to the false impression that the tank was all powerful. El Alamein was to cure that. There the mine and the gun showed that the tank was far from invincible against defences in depth.
One of the first to absorb this lesson was lieut-Gen Giffard le Q. Martel, erstwhile leader of the Royal Armoured Corps. Arriving in Moscow in April 1943 as leader of the British military mission, Martel Immidiatley saw Stalin and Battlefield visits followed."


It goes on about Martel giving some advise before the battle of Kursk and looking around the Red Army.

.."Martel had mixed views on the Red Army. He was impressed by its organising skills and by the toughness and bravery of its soldiers, but thought its technique second rate. "One of our middle east armies would have completely outclassed any army on either side on the Russian front" he said. On the face of it, fulsome praise, but actually supported by fact.

The red army was some five million strong when attacked by the Nazis in June 1941. Many of its soldiers were cut off and forced to surrender.But within six months, a further five million had been put in the field. While an organisational triumph, the rapid build up was hardly conductive to immaculate technique.

Hitlers field armies on the Russian front were a mixed bunch and included Romanians, Italians, Hungarians and volunteers from the occupied territories. These armies were by no means in the same class as Rommels elite Africa Korps. At the time of Martels statement, the Germans still relied mainly on the panzer Mk 1V and Mk 111 specials. The superior panthers and Tigers were yet to appear on the battlefield in significant numbers.

Before the final battle in North Africa, The British 8th army had marched almost 3000 kilometres from El Alamein, fighting several battles on the way. The British 1st army, assisted by an American corps, had fought its way through the Tunisian mountains. Together, they overwhelmed General Von Arnims group of armies, taking some 238,000 prisoners, including over 100,000 Germans - a greater number than taken at Stalingrad. This feat had to put the two British formations in the top bracket of field armies.

At that time, our tanks were slightly inferior to the better German and Russian Models and our infantry weapons were also somewhat inferior. But these deficiencies were more than made up by the "terrible British artillery". Included was the 25-pounder gun, undoubtedly the best field gun of the war. And the British method of centralised gun control was never bettered in any army. The two British field armies were also highly mechanised, whereas the German relied to a surprising extent on horse transport and the Russians were always hampered by there shortage of wheeled vehicles"

I know an American Corps is mentioned but praise indeed for the British army's "boots on the ground"
 
#18
Well, for those that would like more detail as to how close the USA got to being bombed on the West coast with a Radioactive "Dirty bomb" by the Japanese. Material left Germany april 1945 and was due to be transfered to an equally extra large submarine in a japanese harbour. With Kit planes and Kamakase pilots. Attack was planned for may/june 1945.

V3 rockets fired from France that could reach the EAST coast of the USA.
Expected first use of V3 to hit USA was end 1945. Prototype was already completed. V3 carried a 1 Ton bomb. Various types of bombs were also planned and tested. Gas, dirty bomb, HE etc.
V3 plans and some german engineers were also on board the sub with the radioactive stuff.

Air to Air Missiles with infra red = engine/heat seeking guidance ready to go into production early 1945.

Also mass production of ME 242, 260 etc jet planes started early 1945.
But factories over-run by allies.

Despite day and night bombing.

Then watch some of the tv programs now showing on Nat geo etc.

The Germans and Japanese only needed 6 more months and they could have made mincemeat of the USA, allied bombers over europe and the allies landing at Normandy.

With hindsight we should be happy Hitler was in charge and not the Generals.
Hitler slowed down or stopped 1943/44:

Tiger tank
Jet plane production.
Air to air missile r&d.

He deemed the above not capable of giving the edge to the military.
Its not surprising they (the generals) wanted to kill him.

The septics should be thanking the Japanese and the US president for saving them from mass destruction and millions of dead.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads