WWII Invasion - without the US ?

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

19 years 2 months

Posts: 585

In another thread I have come across a couple of posters who believe that a successful invasion of Europe could have been achieved without the United States of America.

I think that this absolute tosh.

Without help from the US in my opinion the allies would probably have lost the war.

Amongst other things I doubt we would have been stong enough economically to continue with the fight during the early 1940's without American economic assistance let alone militerily. The UK owes a huge debt of gratitude to the US and Presdident Rosevelt in particular.

OK, I appreciate that Hollywood would have it that the US won the war by itself. Rubbish of course. However wthout the US we would now be speaking either German or Russian.

Original post

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 1,542

The population of the Axis countries would have been circa 600 million, while allied countries without the US would be 2-3 times that amount (at least) so man power easily goes to the Allies.

By 1941, Germany had used much of its valuable/necessary raw materials. Even without US assistance, we had access to a huge wealth of precious materials (India being a huge resource)

Japan would have struggled to fully exploit china, given the size of China and it's population and how small the Japanese population was.

I'm not saying that we would definately have been successful, but I have no doubt that eventually we would have been able to launch full scale invasions in Europe and the far east.

I definately welcome US assistance though. They fought very tough fronts in much of the world, and made huge sacrifices in doing so. Their dominance ushered in the end of our Empire (which was inevitable anyway, as with all empires) I dare say that their involvement reduced the potential
Ength of the war significantly.

Member for

19 years 1 month

Posts: 6,043

The USA was supplying us with crucial war material Long before they joined the war,IMO if the US had not entered the war then the outcome would have been very different...remember they were supplying the soviets as well ;)

rgds baz

Member for

19 years 2 months

Posts: 585

j_jza80

In 1943 German production was still increasing year on year.........

Have a read of Albert Spier's book.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 1,542

Sorry, I was more specifically referring to pre '41, German shortages due to huge production increases and stretched supply lines on the mainland.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 1,542

The USA was supplying us with crucial war material Long before they joined the war,IMO if the US had not entered the war then the outcome would have been very different...remember they were supplying the soviets as well ;)

rgds baz

Had the US not come to our aid, we would have potentially been able to provide troops and supplies to the Soviets from India.

Member for

19 years 2 months

Posts: 585

j_jza80

Sorry but that really is rubbish.

Without the "unoffical" assistance from the States we would have lost.

The U-boats would have won the battle of the Atlantic. No fuel for us and game over.

We had no troops ourselves after Dunkirk nor any supplies.

We only managed to stay in war production thanks to materials that came over the Atlantc from North America.

Member for

20 years 5 months

Posts: 10,625

Waco:

Seems you've already made up your mind, rubbishing everyone's opinion that is contrary to yours.
Why bother opening a discussion thread?

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 16,832

Without the US there would have been a Western Front stalemate with the Axis on the far side of the channel and UK and Commonwealth / Empire on this side facing each other, neither able to mount a successful invasion.

Because of the shortage of supplies Bomber Command would never have become as strong as it did, but would still have been an ongoing pain for the Nazi war machine.

Meanwhile on the Eastern Front the Soviets would eventually have prevailed by sheer weight of numbers, pushing the Germans back and finally taking Berlin unaided. The only way this scenario could have changed is is Germany had succeeded in building the Atom Bomb before being overrun.

All of continental Europe would then have become subjugated by the Soviets, whose inevitable next target would have been the UK

Moggy

Member for

13 years 11 months

Posts: 1,335

However wthout the US we would now be speaking either German .

sorry but we were already speaking a form of german . english is at least partly derived from anglo saxon braught over here by the people of the angle and saxony areas in germany !!

Member for

13 years 11 months

Posts: 1,335

it is tricky we had very little in the way of decent armour ( or aircraft to be honest ) compared to germany and the numbers were nowhere near that available to germany

the germans were already occupying france and the channel isles so i for one very much doubt we;d have held them for long

couple that to most food being imported ( about 60 % or so ) the old saying an army marches on its stomach could well apply

also as mentioned germany was very close to having the atom bomb if not for the telemark raid

the russians may well have won over by numbers and sheer bloodiness but doubtfull it would have saved us

there's one thing for sure if we had have been in a winning position it would probbably have been the 39-59 war with much heavier losses

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 1,259

There may well have been a token second front opened up on France's shores, however most of Europe would probably have ended up paying lip service to Russia. The war in North Africa had been won and it is conceivable that Italy could have been liberated.

The question could also be posed that the US only got involved due to the initial declaration by Japan, then it would be a case of looking at the Japanese expansion plans in the far east, if Allied resources weren't tied up in the Far East then there was all the manpower and resources of India, Australia, New Zealand to call upon which could have tipped it back in our favour.

Member for

20 years 5 months

Posts: 10,625

.... if Allied resources weren't tied up in the Far East then there was all the manpower and resources of India, Australia, New Zealand to call upon which could have tipped it back in our favour.

Don't forget Canada. She declared war on the Axis powers a week after Britain.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 1,542

j_jza80

Sorry but that really is rubbish.

Without the "unoffical" assistance from the States we would have lost.

The U-boats would have won the battle of the Atlantic. No fuel for us and game over.

We had no troops ourselves after Dunkirk nor any supplies.

We only managed to stay in war production thanks to materials that came over the Atlantc from North America.

If there was no US aid, there wouldn't have been a battle of the atlantic!

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 1,259

I didn't intentionally mention Canada as I'm under the impression (though I could be wrong) that their role wouldn't have altered greatly had there been no Far East campaign and they were not directly under threat as Australia was and India potentially was.

But while on the subject of the Battle of the Atlantic, there was still movement between Canada and the UK.

Member for

20 years 7 months

Posts: 2,623

j_jza80

That's like saying if the sun doesn't come up tomorrow there'll be no day. You're not really covering yourself in glory here.

There is no way we would have won the war without the USA, we needed their raw material resources as well as oil & fighting machine. Remember Germany obtained alot of their raw materials from Scandinavia in the early part of the war. Without the US the British Empire in the East would have crumbled, the Japs would have run through Burma & India (look what happened to Singapore). Without the US (& Canada of course) there would have been no successful D-Day landings and thus a strengthening of the German stronghold on the Northern coast of France. The Americans (& Canadian, NZ, Australian) played a massive role in the war, of which probably couldn't have been replaced by Britain & France alone, and in a funny kind of way we have the Japs to thank for that, because without Pearl Harbour the Americans might well have stayed out of the war.

Member for

15 years 10 months

Posts: 1,311

WWII Invasion - without the US ?

Pains me to say it, but in my opinion Britain would've been royaly screwed without the yanks, just by the fact of shear numbers & manufacturing capabilties alone is a good enough argument, before getting into any other details.

Equally, without the Britain & it's traditional allies, the US wouldn't have been able to launch a successful invasion either.

Sort of "one all" if you ask me.

Member for

15 years 1 month

Posts: 648

What doesnt seem to have been considered is the political effect of the "discriminating" neutrality practiced by the US prior to their entry into the war and the moral support that this provided to those opposing the Axis. If this support hadnt been provided and if the US hadnt entered the war, then surely it is possible that the resolve of the UK and the commonwealth would have suffered, never mind the effect it could have had on Russia. It is surely possible or maybe even probable that Stalin would have fallen and a peace would have been negotiated with the Nazi's if , for instance,they had captured Moscow. Then the entire might of the Nazi war machine would have been cut lose on the UK, and I doubt if she could have held out a 2nd time. Could the RAF have continued using Blenheims for much longer on raids into France ? Would El Alamein have been won without Grants and Shermans ? If it hadnt and Egypt had fallen , would the Uk have been willing or able to go on fighting? Would Churchill have remained as PM? There was after all, an element within the "ruling" classes who were sympathetic to Hitler's viewpoints.

Without the direct involvement of the US an invasion of Europe or anywhere else would have been virtually impossible.Lets not forget the dangerously low manpower levels that were impacting UK infantry regiments by the time they got as far as the Rhine, can you imagine how far they and the commonwealth forces, minus the US , would have got into France before reaching those critical levels ?

j_jza80 , will just say that you need to do a bit more research.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 1,542

Research events that never took place? :D

Come back to reality! You are making assumptions based upon us conducting the war in the same manner as we would have done with the Americans. That is ridiculous, every change would have reactions that would affect events in ways that you nor I could really begin to comprehend.

Everything in this thread is conjecture, so don't try telling me that there's no way that we could have beaten the Germans. No point that you make is any more valid than mine.

If there's anything that our history proves, it's that the UK has a habit of getting out of tight spots!

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 16,832

Could the RAF have continued using Blenheims for much longer on raids into France ?

Why would they?

The Mosquito was a much better aircraft and owed absolutely nothing to USA input.

Moggy

Member for

15 years 1 month

Posts: 648

Very true, but the British didnt really produce anything that could fulfill the more conventional bombing role they used the Blenheim for, something that they depended on the Americans for with the Baltimore, B-25 and to some extent the B-26.