Did the US win the Second World War for the Europeans?

[Newbie 0]

As a Brit, should i be thankful to the US that i'm not speaking German? How central was the role of the US to the war? If Pearl Harbour hadn't happened, would the US have gone to war? Was their involvement more based on the desire to contain the spread of communist nations and ensure that the capitalist ideology survived by ensuring the survival of the allied countries and their financial stability to trade with the US?

Don't misunderstand this post - i am IMMENSELY grateful to all those who faught against the Axis countries and bow to those who gave their lives against them. The reason i posted this is i was told in no uncertain terms in another post that, were it not due to the US, i would be speaking German. I know there were huge losses for all Allied countries involved, but does anyone have numbers for those lost by country? While a fairly basic, and also sensitive area for research, I think this might provide at least some indication of whether Hitler may have won or not.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[NelKel 0]

I think some 1500 troops were lost in the Normandy invasion, I think that is when the Americans took back occupied land from the Germans. I also believe that Amerians started using brit airbases to launch airattacs against the German homeland.

Before Pearl Harbor I think the Americans were only sending aid, and bullets to our Europen allies. I also think the German U-boats were sinking American passenger shipping because that is how we were trying to sneak the aid into Europe.

As an American I appriciate our allies who flew missions over our skies after 911, and the help and support from Nato/allies now during the wars. I know we are not popular with the majority of Brits and other Europen countries, and I for one do not feel you owe us for WW2. I agree we entered the war to stop the spread of repression before it could reach us
in America.

I think Hitler commited sucide in a bunker after he realized he was loosing popularity with germans and his political party. Of course that may just be propaganda from Amerian politicians.

Hitler was trying to build rockets that could deliver bombs on American soil, and Japan was experminting with ballons that could cary toxic gas to America.

Apparently we were not very popular back then also.

_________________________________________

Someone dies, someone says how stupid, someone says it was avoidable, someone says how to avoid it, someone calls them an idiot, someone proposes rule chan

[Newbie 0]

Thank you for helping shed some light on this, it's been puzzling me for some while, and we probably won't come to any firm conclusions one way or the other, but it is interesting to look at.

PS All the Americans I have met have been really nice people, i don't hate any of you guys. Some Brits will generalise (as most do), but just because they don't like Bush doesn't mean they hate you guys.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[markd_nscr986 0]

No doubt that the US and Russia shouldered most of the burden

But the UK and other Allied countries chipped in as well........

Had the US pursued an isolationist policy,things could be very different in Europe today

If Hitler had developed nukes 1st.............

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[Akey 0]

Sure, Russia took heaps of crap. Hitlers (crazy) descission to fight a war on 2 fronts really screwed him over quite severly. Russia took some estimated 30 million killed or wounded soldiers, and about 20 million civilian deaths (this is not including the 40 million Starlin killed of his own people beofore the war started, setting up russia as a super power, without which they probably couldn't have stood up to the Germans).
However to say that the US came close to this level of involvement is a little far fetched. With just 600, 000 military deaths/wounded and basically no civilian casualties they lost fewer men than the UK (700,000 + 50,000 civies) who also had colonial armies from their empire that came in pretty handy. However the UK did need the help at the time that the US came in, as before, they were doing little more than defending their own boarders (time of the battle of Bitain, the were doing really quite well it, this should be said, but not in the best position to mount sure fired offensives). And had they not, Hitler may have developed the atom bomb before anyone in the world (and yes probably before the US coz the US put more money into their bomb project having started the war not before and also got some handy work from german scientists) and then i could well be sitting here wearing a red armband, and i'm not in a swimming pool incase you ask. I think this is reasonably accurate... So thankyou america!!

[rehmwa 2]

Sure, why not? big player there for whatever reason.

Same can said for Russia, or Russia and the US, or Britain and the US, or Britain and Russia, or France and Britain, or any of several combinations of the allied forces.

So sure, if enough of the allied forces and leadership was missing in any number of scenarios, I bet that war could have been lost. What is it about "Allies" that is so tough for people on both sides of this type of discussion?

1 - Saying "if not for the US, that war might have been lost" doesn't always imply that the statement means the US shouldered the entire load. Just that they were a critical portion of a huge team of nations. The question is, is the arrogant interpretation of that statement being implied or inferred? I think most of the time it's being inferred.

2 - for those that are implying the arrogant interpretation, well, they should be flamed as it's a goofy thought. But that person should be flamed, not the entire contribution to the war by the US. Which is what normally happens.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GTAVercetti 0]

If you look over in the thread he was refering to (the double gas price one), you can see the arrogance definitely seems to be coming from the poster and not the reader. At least that is how I see it. Basically is came down to "we saved your ass, show us a little respect."

I also agree with your assement and I like jelly beans sometimes.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Akey 0]

Couldn't see a better way of putting it, well said!

[lawrocket 3]

I'd say US involvement won the war for the Europeans. Here's how:

Hitler wanted to take out Great Britain with an invasion. The "Battle of Britain." During this time, and throughout the war, the US was sending supplies. Food, raw materials, petroleum, etc. All were suppled to Britain through the merchant marine convoys.

Had these supplies not come in, Britain would have been unable to defend itself. Britain most probably would then have been taken by Germany, in much the same way Americans took Iwo Jimo.

Once Britain was occupied, it would have become a single front war. I still don't believe that Germany could have taken all of Russia, though it would have been a longer and more difficult fight with more Russian death and suffering.

Did the US "win" the Second World War? No. Could the Allies have won the Second World War without us? Probably not. And there would be a good chance that, yes, there would be a large German influence in Britain today had America not entered that war or provided to Britain logistical support.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Without a doubt the US was very influential in helping to win World War II for the allies against the Axis powers. But countries like the US and Canada had it easier compared to the people in Europe and Russia. The civilian and manufacturing sectors of North America never needed to worry about being bombed like the civilian populations of Europe were. So much of the material used to win the war was built here and supplied to that effort. It was a team effort. I think Germany and Japan lost the war more than any single allied country won the war. Poor military planning on Hitlers part (like opening up the eastern front before the UK was conquered) was very very influential on the wars out come. It was a team effort with the US playing a huge role in supplying men and material towards winning the war.

Oh and some of the battles and human loses in that war were staggering compared to the types of battles we see nowadays. It was an epic effort that's for sure, one that each and everyone of us who values our freedom needs to be grateful for. So to the soldiers and people of all the allied nations, I say thank you for your sacrific.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[philip2005 0]

Actually Hitler all but gave up on invading the British Isles after the RAF won the battle of britain, with the help of a few Polish pilots so its them we should really be grateful too. Hitler never actually wanted a war with Britain thats why he tried to negotiate first. Us Brits were an absoloute nusiance to the Nazis we opened up a new front to the war and overstreched their reasources. The USA certainly did play a huge part in ending/winning WWII for the allies, but i wouldn't say they stopped us all speaking German.

[Newbie 0]

Interesting points from you and Canuck above, thanks.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

.....At least that is how I see it. Basically is came down to "we saved your ass, show us a little respect."

then my point #2 applies for "that" individual. I put in point #1 because it is the knee jerk response quite often. And then the refutation isn't against the original speaker, it's just a minimization of all things American.

This thread is much more reasonable than the normal stuff. Kudos to the first poster for setting up without the confrontational/defensive mood.

I like caramel better than jelly beans. And black licorice

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

.....At least that is how I see it. Basically is came down to "we saved your ass, show us a little respect."

then my point #2 applies for "that" individual. I put in point #1 because it is the knee jerk response quite often. And then the refutation isn't against the original speaker, it's just a minimization of all things American.

This thread is much more reasonable than the normal stuff. Kudos to the first poster for setting up without the confrontational/defensive mood.

I like caramel better than jelly beans. And black licorice

I agree. Its good to see that many people with the view that while America DID help, we were only a piece of the total puzzle. Without all the pieces, it probably would have turned out differently.

I hate black licorice. BLEH. But carmel jelly beans are delicious.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Quote

Us Brits were an absoloute nusiance to the Nazis we opened up a new front to the war and overstreched their reasources.

I would argue that the British debacle at Dunkirk actually encouraged the Nazi generals to hasten their plans for invading Britain. It was Hitler’s misguided decision to shift resources away from fulfilling these plans in order to pursue his vision of pummeling the British people into capitulation via an aerial bombing campaign which helped forestall Britain’s defeat.

Also, for most of the war German resources didn’t get stretched to the degree that Britain's inherent resources were stretched. Germany had access to the oil fields of southeastern Europe, for example, and Britain had no similar access to reliable petroleum stocks but for the American contribution.

It was an allied effort which defeated facism in Europe back then. Victory in the Pacific theatre, however, was achieved overwhelmingly by America as compared with its allies’ contributions. It was the first time in our history that we fought and won a two-front war across the oceans.


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[chuteless 1]

The U.S.A. never won the second world war....they helped win it.

Bill Cole

[LuvToFly 0]

Quote

However to say that the US came close to this level of involvement is a little far fetched. With just 600, 000 military deaths/wounded and basically no civilian casualties they lost fewer men than the UK (700,000 + 50,000 civies) who also had colonial armies from their empire that came in pretty handy. However the UK did need the help at the time that the US came in, as before, they were doing little more than defending their own boarders (time of the battle of Bitain, the were doing really quite well it, this should be said, but not in the best position to mount sure fired offensives). And had they not, Hitler may have developed the atom bomb before anyone in the world (and yes probably before the US coz the US put more money into their bomb project having started the war not before and also got some handy work from german scientists) and then i could well be sitting here wearing a red armband, and i'm not in a swimming pool incase you ask. I think this is reasonably accurate... So thankyou america!!

Using fatalities as a gauge to determine involvement is not a fair assessment for this purpose. The US troops were regarded as the best Allied fighting force and best equipped in the world at that time. In fact they were a major player in the liberation of Europe and could have suffered many more casualties if the above were not true. In this case, measuring US fatalities does not link directly to how many enemy troops or resources were destroyed either. So I think the answer is, yes, without the US involvement in WWII it would be a very different world in Europe today.

"The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment
of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

[Dolph 0]

The Russian front would have collapsed if the US hadn't sent massive quantities of equipment, steel and so forth to the Russians. That'd allow Hitler to take his troops elsewhere.

As far as the west front - the vast majority of German troops were fighting in the east. Their best took a serious beating there after the Russian war machine was moving at full speed. I doubt the west front was necessary to win the war - the Germans would have been beaten by the Russians anyhow. Would have taken a little longer though.

If the US had not directly intervened in the war, we'd speak a different language here. It'd be Russian, not German though.

[wmw999 2,149]

I just heard the best quote in a long time today.

If IF was a fifth we'd all be drunk

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

If the US had not directly intervened in the war, we'd speak a different language here. It'd be Russian, not German though.

Now that's about the best "we didn't need the US at all" argument I've seen yet. It's intelligent and not rude or angry or nationalistic.

But's it Eurocentric, not world centric possibly:

I'd ask this question - If the US wasn't involved at all in WW2 on the Eastern front, do you think the Russians could have had as strong an effect in the Western front? (would the Japanese have been able to neutralize the Russians from the other side?)

I still go with a team effort, with the US having a huge piece of the pie - one of the very primary and necessary players, crucial to the outcome.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[juanesky 0]

Yes and I like appple pie...hhhmmmm

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[markd_nscr986 0]

Quote

as far as the west front - the vast majority of German troops were fighting in the east. Their best took a serious beating there after the Russian war machine was moving at full speed. I doubt the west front was necessary to win the war - the Germans would have been beaten by the Russians anyhow. Would have taken a little longer though.

If the US had not directly intervened in the war, we'd speak a different language here. It'd be Russian, not German though.



Possibly..........The US war effort was suppling Russia with raw materials,technical expertise and aircraft( we couldnt make the P39 Airacobra work for us so we gave thousands to the Russians)

But more importantly,if the US policy of strategic daylight bombing raids had not been so successful at obliterating the Axis infrastructure.......it would have been a very long war.......possibly a stalemate on the eastern front.........and who knows.......

Reichsmarshall Goering is credited with the statement "When I saw Mustangs over Berlin,I knew the war was lost"

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

• Quote

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

But more importantly,if the US policy of strategic daylight bombing raids had not been so successful at obliterating the Axis infrastructure.......it would have been a very long war.......possibly a stalemate on the eastern front.........and who knows.......

and who knows what would have happened if US cities and industries were bombed the same way German, British, Russian and Japanese cities were bombed. Nobody should take anything away from the effort the US put forth in that epic struggle. But to come off saying if it wasn't for the US is disrepectful for those who had to endure much more hardship that the average American citizen.

The good did prevail in that war and we can be thankful for that. But it was a collective effort. One nation didn't win that war, many did.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Oh yeah?! Without our Colonel Hogan seducing Klink’s sexcretary your Newkirk and LeBeau would still be in zee cooler.


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

As a Brit, should i be thankful to the US that i'm not speaking German? How central was the role of the US to the war? If Pearl Harbour hadn't happened, would the US have gone to war? Was their involvement more based on the desire to contain the spread of communist nations and ensure that the capitalist ideology survived by ensuring the survival of the allied countries and their financial stability to trade with the US?

I definitely believe that European nations were going down like Dominos to Hitler, and every nation then was just more of a pool of resources for his military.

Yeah, I do indeed believe that Europe was on the ropes, and if America had not sent its people and its resources, Europe would be one big Germany right now, probably duking it out with Russia or China just like we ended up doing. Or maybe Hitler'd have managed to take Russia too after another decade of wearing them down.

Either way, American intervention -- and INVENTION -- was PIVOTAL to defeating Hitler.

I can't see how there is even any question. Hitler was about to have the Jet aircraft perfected, wasn't he? He had those nasty rockets, too, the V-2 they were called, yah? WE developed The Bomb, right? We hustled up and made the P-51, and it was our bombers that took the major cities that needed to be taken, right? (Including Hiroshima and Nagasaki.)

Quote

Axis countries and bow to those who gave their lives against them. The reason i posted this is i was told in no uncertain terms in another post that, were it not due to the US, i would be speaking German. I know there were huge losses for all Allied countries involved, but does anyone have numbers for those lost by country?

I think that's irrelevant. Without the U.S., the European nations were done for. Even if it were our very first five tanks and three airplanes that got you back into the fight, without them you would have lost.


-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"