Q of the Week - American help the deciding factor?

[Leon]

As I've already said, my historical knowledge needs some broadening.  So, after a debate with a guy in America, I'm asking:

Would we have still won WWII without the help of America?

[Megamatman]

You've opened a can of worms here mate! 

[Leon]

It's the wargaming equivalent of Football vs NFL!

[Hurley]

Yes and no. This is all opinion based. I'm Canadian by the way. 

Yes the U.S did keep the Brit's alive but without the Brit's the US would have lost to the German war machine in time.   

Think about it. The UK would have starved to death even with Canada helping them.

The US would have then had to deal with German Subs and no intelligence from Europe. Also lets not forget that some of the guys that escaped Germany helped build the A-Bomb and NASA.

As for Canada helping the US? Nah man at this point we would be used up trying to feed and arm the UK.

[Leon]

Yes and no. This is all opinion based. I'm Canadian by the way. 

Yes the U.S did keep the Brit's alive but without the Brit's the US would have lost to the German war machine in time.   

Think about it. The UK would have starved to death even with Canada helping them.

The US would have then had to deal with German Subs and no intelligence from Europe. Also lets not forget that some of the guys that escaped Germany helped build the A-Bomb and NASA.

As for Canada helping the US? Nah man at this point we would be used up trying to feed and arm the UK.

That's interesting, I've never heard the Canadian viewpoint on this.  What I'd heard previously was that Hitler had overextended himself when he went into Russia, underestimating the time it would require.  This left him fighting on two fronts, which, over time, would have crippled him, regardless of the US involvement.

Also, when you say 'arm the UK', can you elaborate?  I'd always thought that the UK armed itself?

[Ben Waterhouse]

We (UK) wouldn't have, but the Russians would; and the post war Iron Curtain would have been the Rhine...

[lentulus]

Also, when you say 'arm the UK', can you elaborate?  I'd always thought that the UK armed itself?

Consider the proportion of Commonwealth tanks that were Shermans and Grants, or the proportion of convoy escorts that were US (even before December of 41).  Britain could have held out, but D-Day would have been impossible.

This is setting aside the Canadian made component of Commonwealth manufacturing, or I am sure the contribution of India and other parts of the Empire.  The Commonwealth may have done much of the arming of itself, but that is not just the UK.

I think that the Soviets would have had an even harder time of it without at least the truck component of lend lease.

Another Canuck here, by the way.

[Hurley]

A lot of the raw metals came from Canada and the UK. Without metal you got no way to fight a war on a large scale. My home town is Bell Island, which is in Newfoundland. We are a mining town, most of the iron we mined before WW1 was for the Germans, then of course it all went to the UK. Bell Island had ships sank at anchor while they where being loaded with ore (during WW2). So if we lost some ships even with the help of the US god knows what the count would have been without the US.  At one point before the us joined the fight the Germans stone walled us at the start of the St. Lawrence cutting off food from the prairies with subs. Once the US joined the fight the Germans had to spread out to cover not just Canada's shores but the US's as well. 

It is my opinion (not fact) that with out the extra ships from the us going to the UK the German Subs would have been able to cut off shipping in hole to the UK. This would have deceased the effective use of air planes allowing even greater bombing of the UK. Also without hope of resupply this would have lowered or broken moral of the public in the UK. 

That's my 2 cents worth.

[Luddite]

As I've already said, my historical knowledge needs some broadening.  So, after a debate with a guy in America, I'm asking:

Would we have still won WWII without the help of America?

Who's 'we'?

US involvement definately shortened the war but frankly as soon as Operation Barbarossa (the German invasion of Russia) faltered, it was inevitable really that Germany would fall to Russia.  The Russians were simply out-producing Germany on a massive scale and also as time passed its personnel and materiel improved to be in many ways better than the Germans.

Without US involvement, the war may well have dragged on into 1946/1947 but ultimately a UK/Russain victory would have been achieved in Europe.

However its all 'ifs and buts' as of course given a year or two more a German atomic missile may well have been developed tipping the scales back in their favour....

Then of course there's the Pacific theatre and its unlikely the Russians would have had much interest in taking on the Japanese so a stalemate may have been reached there, perhaps ceding control of much of the captured British territories there to the Japanese....

Its a very difficult question to answer accurately, but my 'gut feeling' is that the US involvement simply shortened the war rather than won it...  

[Leon]

That's similar to what someone else told me a while ago.  I find it interesting how these things work, and how there are so many different factors.

I'll probably have another question next week for people, all in the aid of expanding my limited historical knowledge.

[Martyn]

I don't think so simply because we did not have the industrial clout or the finance to carry on the war. Basically WW1 had drained us as it had France. The US had everything going for it Finance, Industrial power and it was not being bombed.

[Sunray]

In broad terms, three factors won the war for the Allies

1. British intelligence - The 'Ultra factor'

2.  Russian Blood

3. American Resources

Without the resources of the USA, or if the war aganist Japan had been given priorty, then yes, the Iron curtain would have been over most of Europe.
Could UK have mounted a D Day without the US ?  That is the key question.

[Luddite]

Could UK have mounted a D Day without the US ?  That is the key question.

No.

'Give us the tools and we will finish the job' :- Churchill

But in my opinion its not 'the key question'. 
D-Day simply shortened the war by diverting German war effort to a second front.  Without it the Russians would have still overwhelmed Germany but it would have been a harder slog and probably would have dragged on into 1946/47.

Ultimately i think, and this is of course opinion, the US involvement was largely inconsequential in Europe, merely shortening the conflict.  Which is in no way to denigrate the sacrifices made there.  Where their involvement was crucial was the Pacific.  Without it the Japanese Empire would have remained unchallenged since the only other regional power (Britain) was eshausted.

The Brits may have been able to mount operations into Italy but even this is doubtful.  After Dunkirk and Simgapore, the British were basically a spent force in terms of equipment, if not in terms of fighting spirit.

[Sunray]

Yes, I think that's a useful qualification. 

To unpack all the corollaries of the counterfactual argument some hard factors emerge.

First, It is possible to argue that the Empire would have been hard pushed to mount 'Torch' nevermind 'Overlord'.

Secondly,  you take the 8th Air Force out of the war.  Albert Speer meets his targets in terms of the new weapons ....like Me262s . And the Luffwaffe can send 109s AND 190s eastward.

Thirdly, with no prospect of  a second front, the physchological  aspects of the war changes.  Vinchy France might have come in the Axis camp
and key crack units can be sent east from Norway to N France.

Fourthy, - and every military academy in the west played this scenario - how would the Wermacht have fared with only one front? Pretty damm good actually.
the in depth defence,thet averaged a tank kill ratio of 5:1 (equalled only by IDF in Yom Kippur) But they would have  enjoyed total AS.

If you want to put that on the tabletop,  mass your Red Army - JSIII and T34/85s ...But as they artilley gets into position let loose the Me 262s....
and the tanks stream forward .....divert into killing grounds with Tiger II and Panthers commanded by Aces like Wittmann.  In the 1970s...when I was a soldier, they were our TATICAL role models.   and YES, THERE'S A GOOD GAME TO BE PLAYED THERE.  back to the table....




 

[Luddite]

First, It is possible to argue that the Empire would have been hard pushed to mount 'Torch' nevermind 'Overlord'.

Agreed.  I think Britain was spent by the overrun of its territories and the loss of its materiel at Dunkirk.  Without American equipment (which incidentally the British government only finished paying for in 2004) it was out of the war as an aggressor really.

Secondly,  you take the 8th Air Force out of the war.  Albert Speer meets his targets in terms of the new weapons ....like Me262s . And the Luffwaffe can send 109s AND 190s eastward.

Agreed but i'd propose that, like on the ground, German technology in the air would be simply outproduced by the Russians.  and their air power was readily able to challenge the Luftwaffe.

Thirdly, with no prospect of  a second front, the physchological  aspects of the war changes.  Vinchy France might have come in the Axis camp
and key crack units can be sent east from Norway to N France.

Perhaps for the Germans but the Russian psychology was set by the early events of Barbarossa.  Germany was the great enemy that would be overcome at all costs.  

Fourthy, - and every military academy in the west played this scenario - how would the Wermacht have fared with only one front? Pretty damm good actually.
the in depth defence,thet averaged a tank kill ratio of 5:1 (equalled only by IDF in Yom Kippur) But they would have  enjoyed total AS.

Not really.  most of their best units were deployed in the east anyway and look what happened.  Also air superiority to the Germans?  Not with the volume of aircraft the Russians were pushing out.  They could replace their losses and build their forces far faster and to a larger capacity than the Germans.  I think the Luftwaffe would have struggled to keep up, and ultimately would have lost the air to the Russians.

As for material losses, the Germans killing 5 tanks to 1 lost?  Impressive.  Trouble is the Russians replaced those five with 20 more...something the Germans couldn't do.

US involvement shortened the war but ultimately it was the Russian Bear and their great ally 'General Winter' that defeated Germany.

[fishunter]

Well when it comes to the german army outperforming the russians , why not. But since before landings in Sicily and Normandy the OKH (as in Hitler at that time) had already issued the "not one step back " order and started the "festung" defence strategy.
This removed most of the actual german military superiority(except for Kharkov early'43), which was based on better , if fewer , equipment; higher morale , if less men; and high mobility of crack units(read Grossdeutschland and such), even if most of the of the time boots and hooves where the norm for the german soldier.

When we take in account that at the high point of the war on the eastern front('43) , the russian army had about 15+ millions men under arms, bear in mind this includes all non-combatants too.
Considering aswell the fact that Germany did not start to mobilise its industry for total war before '43 (beer hall speech from Goebbels)

The OKH was quite clear over that at the onset of winter '41 their chances got slimer for every passing day that allowed the Stavka to recover ,learn,and put in action their incredibly high manpower.

Essentially the eastern front was a win or die situation from the start.The attrition rate to secure vital ressources for the reich's (war)industry,which essentially was the goal of Operation Barbarossa,  was so unsustainable in the long run that after the failure to capture the oilfields south, the war as a ressource gathering priority was lost on Germany.Add to that the bombing of Germany's industry by the british...

Then ,only men and equipment remains, some of wich , while arguably of lesser quality , the russians had plenty of.(and then some more)

In the end , i believe, Germany would have lost anyway.

[Aart Brouwer]

Would we have still won WWII without the help of America?

The short answer probably is: You wouldn't have, but the Russians would.

You opened a can of worms indeed. The long answer is far too long for a wargaming forum. I am always struck by the economy of intellectual scale among wargamers. They have amazingly detailed knowledge of, say, the inner workings of the Springfield M1903A4, but when it comes to the larger picture they will just as easily maintain that 'Roosevelt was an idiot' or 'WWII came about 'cause Hitler was a vegetarian'.

Cheers,
Aart

[Kebabman]

Would we have still won WWII without the help of America?

The short answer probably is: You wouldn't have, but the Russians would.

You opened a can of worms indeed. The long answer is far too long for a wargaming forum. I am always struck by the economy of intellectual scale among wargamers. They have amazingly detailed knowledge of, say, the inner workings of the Springfield M1903A4, but when it comes to the larger picture they will just as easily maintain that 'Roosevelt was an idiot' or 'WWII came about 'cause Hitler was a vegetarian'.

Cheers,
Aart

Sadly Aart I would have to agree.

[Leon]

You opened a can of worms indeed. The long answer is far too long for a wargaming forum. I am always struck by the economy of intellectual scale among wargamers. They have amazingly detailed knowledge of, say, the inner workings of the Springfield M1903A4, but when it comes to the larger picture they will just as easily maintain that 'Roosevelt was an idiot' or 'WWII came about 'cause Hitler was a vegetarian'.

Haha!

There are some interesting points being brought up here.  I never knew the production scale/output of the Russians, or the importance of the Americans defending the Atlantic to allow equipment to reach Britain, so this is all good stuff.

[Warmachine]

'WWII came about 'cause Hitler was a vegetarian'.

LOL 

And me think it was because he was homosexual.....I read this in somewhere some time ago. And i went dooo!, the whole leather thing, hands in the air, and little blond boys was kind of a clue