I thought that this subject from another thread would be a good topic for debate - even if it's not a "current" affair, it is in this forum!
There are many ifs and buts to this, but my own view is that had America not entered the war, Britain would not have had the resources to liberate the rest of Europe. Now, whether the Germans would have continued to fight against Britain is debateable - the German leaders had not expressed a desire to attack Britain initially, they only did so after Britain was forced by treaty to declare war on them. But, if they had chosen to, they would then have had all the resources available to them from the conquered nations to eventually destroy Britain, probably in the form of a naval blockade leading to starvation. BFPO would also have had tremendous difficulties in returning to the UK as a defensive force, and an army cut off from it's supplies soon dies, especially in the deserts of Africa.
The Russian's continued involvement is also debatable. They fought very bravely and many died, but theirs was a mainly defensive war. If Hitler had withdrawn from Russia and diverted troops to an Eastern defensive line within Germany, the Russians would probably not have continued with a costly invasion.
To answer my own question:- Would Britain have lost the war if America hadn't joined? Imo, eventually - with no other factors, ifs or buts involved, yes.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Would Britain have lost WW2 if America hadn''t joined?
last reply
31 replies
2.1k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Had it not been for the (albeit late as usual) intervention of the United States in WW1 there would not have been a WW2. But in answer to your OP the Americans were no more important than the Soviets in WW2. Hitler was obviously not a great General, that is why he fought that war on two fronts. Had he taken Stallingrad the Yanks would have had to go home and whistle Dixie.
I believe that without the Americans input, money and security measures,and their massive ammounts of man power, there would have been a very strong possibility that we may not have won the war.
This is of course only speculation, as nobody will ever know for sure but....their intervention at the very least speeded up the end of the war, and therefore saved many more lives on both sides.
Times are of course different today than in the 30's and the 40's but....I cannot understand how we allowed Germany to become so powerful again after the first war, and also how one country nearly defeated the world. Hitler may have been mad, but just as equally a brilliant motivator of the German people.
Luckily for all of us his weaknesses outweighed his strengths......in the end.
This is of course only speculation, as nobody will ever know for sure but....their intervention at the very least speeded up the end of the war, and therefore saved many more lives on both sides.
Times are of course different today than in the 30's and the 40's but....I cannot understand how we allowed Germany to become so powerful again after the first war, and also how one country nearly defeated the world. Hitler may have been mad, but just as equally a brilliant motivator of the German people.
Luckily for all of us his weaknesses outweighed his strengths......in the end.
Sex God
America only entered the was against Germany after it's war against Japan had become public. If Japan had not Attack America and then British holdings in the east. Britain was forced to defend both the commonwealth and America. Britain could have used those same resources against Germany. Masses of weapons and men were tied up in the east. All due to America expansion after it attacked and occupied Spanish colonies in the pacific.
Perhaps had it not been for the eastern war More troops could have been used in Africa and then in the drive up Italy.
It could be argued that if America had not interfered in Japan's affairs Japan would not have entered the war, Germany would have been defeated earlier.
After all British Aircarft Carries were better than American.
Perhaps had it not been for the eastern war More troops could have been used in Africa and then in the drive up Italy.
It could be argued that if America had not interfered in Japan's affairs Japan would not have entered the war, Germany would have been defeated earlier.
After all British Aircarft Carries were better than American.
Quote by kentswingers777
I believe that without the Americans input, money and security measures,and their massive ammounts of man power, there would have been a very strong possibility that we may not have won the war.
This is of course only speculation, as nobody will ever know for sure but....their intervention at the very least speeded up the end of the war, and therefore saved many more lives on both sides.
Times are of course different today than in the 30's and the 40's but....I cannot understand how we allowed Germany to become so powerful again after the first war, and also how one country nearly defeated the world. Hitler may have been mad, but just as equally a brilliant motivator of the German people.
Luckily for all of us his weaknesses outweighed his strengths......in the end.
Maybe the continuing strength of the influence from the House of Hanover
Sex God
Quote by GnV
I believe that without the Americans input, money and security measures,and their massive ammounts of man power, there would have been a very strong possibility that we may not have won the war.
This is of course only speculation, as nobody will ever know for sure but....their intervention at the very least speeded up the end of the war, and therefore saved many more lives on both sides.
Times are of course different today than in the 30's and the 40's but....I cannot understand how we allowed Germany to become so powerful again after the first war, and also how one country nearly defeated the world. Hitler may have been mad, but just as equally a brilliant motivator of the German people.
Luckily for all of us his weaknesses outweighed his strengths......in the end.
Maybe the continuing strength of the influence from the House of Hanover
After WW1 and the western allies supporting the failed counter revolution in Russia Stalin looked for new allies. One was Hitler. Russia trained Germany's Luftwaffe. Russia took half of Poland for supporting Germany.
Apart from that, no one wanted another trench war. So Hitler Garbed a bit here and there. It all went wrong for him when Britain and France defended Poland.
America didn't enter WW2 out of the kindness of their hearts. Britain had to PAY for their services. The last payment of this debt has only been paid within the last ten years or so.
Would we have won without their services? We will never know, thankfully. I can't get my head round the thought of the Third Reich controlling vast areas of the globe today.
Would we have won without their services? We will never know, thankfully. I can't get my head round the thought of the Third Reich controlling vast areas of the globe today.
News just in from Strasbourg on the latest developments in the language policy for Europe (pronounced Y eurpl) which is the next step towards full European integration.
The European Union Commissioners have announced that agreement has finally been reached to adopt English as the preferred language for European communications, rather than German which was the other possibility. As part of the negotiations Her Majesty's Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a five year plan for what is known as Euro English (or Euro for short).
In the first year, "s" will be used instead of the soft "c". Sertainly, some sivil servants will resieve this news with joy. Also the hard "c" will be replaced with "k". Not only will this klear up konfusion, but typewriters will have one less letter.
There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the ever troublesome "ph" will be replaced by "f". This makes the words like fotograf 20 per sent shorter.
In the third year, publik aksetanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Linguists will enkorage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also al wil agre that the horible mes of silent "e"s in the language is disgasful, and they would go.
By the forth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v". During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be droped from vords kontaining "ou" and similar changes vuld of kurs be aplied to ozer kombinations of leters.
After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubls or difikultis and evrirun vil find it ezi tu understand ech ozer.
Ze drem vil finali kum tru!
The European Union Commissioners have announced that agreement has finally been reached to adopt English as the preferred language for European communications, rather than German which was the other possibility. As part of the negotiations Her Majesty's Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a five year plan for what is known as Euro English (or Euro for short).
In the first year, "s" will be used instead of the soft "c". Sertainly, some sivil servants will resieve this news with joy. Also the hard "c" will be replaced with "k". Not only will this klear up konfusion, but typewriters will have one less letter.
There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the ever troublesome "ph" will be replaced by "f". This makes the words like fotograf 20 per sent shorter.
In the third year, publik aksetanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Linguists will enkorage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also al wil agre that the horible mes of silent "e"s in the language is disgasful, and they would go.
By the forth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v". During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be droped from vords kontaining "ou" and similar changes vuld of kurs be aplied to ozer kombinations of leters.
After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubls or difikultis and evrirun vil find it ezi tu understand ech ozer.
Ze drem vil finali kum tru!
Sex God
I am loking forward to zis, and the droping of the 'k' from knight.
Sex God
I don't reckon there were 2 World wars - just one with a long lull.
The political conflicts that caused WW1 (not just an assassination of a single leader - there was a lot more to it than that) weren't settled in 1918. They just seethed for 21 more years.
As to the US influence in WW2 - they had a huge influence in providing men and equipment and food - at great risk to themselves. Whether we would have inevitable lost - I have no idea.
But why they did it? For their own security of course. It was the same reason we declared war - we weren't THAT fond of the Poles to die in our thousands to avenge their being attacked unless we had something to lose.
The political conflicts that caused WW1 (not just an assassination of a single leader - there was a lot more to it than that) weren't settled in 1918. They just seethed for 21 more years.
As to the US influence in WW2 - they had a huge influence in providing men and equipment and food - at great risk to themselves. Whether we would have inevitable lost - I have no idea.
But why they did it? For their own security of course. It was the same reason we declared war - we weren't THAT fond of the Poles to die in our thousands to avenge their being attacked unless we had something to lose.
Flower, as ever things are not nearly so black and white as they seem, do a little research on the Monroe Doctrine and maybe you will realise why the Americans were a little tardy arriving.
From my understanding, the American leaders would have entered the war much earlier but they had to "sell" it to the American public who didn't want their sons dying in a foreign war......sounds familiar? Pearl Harbour gave them the excuse they needed.
I'm not an historian so stand to be corrected.
From my understanding, the American leaders would have entered the war much earlier but they had to "sell" it to the American public who didn't want their sons dying in a foreign war......sounds familiar? Pearl Harbour gave them the excuse they needed.
I'm not an historian so stand to be corrected.
Master of Sex
As far as the American public were concerned, the war was a "local" conflict confined to Europe. Japan launched an unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbour, the very next day, Hitler declared war on the US. For most Americans, it was a case of "WTF????".
Despite Hollywood's best attempts to rewrite History, Britain had the upper hand due to the fact that the boffins at Bletchley had obtained an Enigma machine and had cracked the "unbreakable" German code. It is acknowledged that the success of the code-breakers had taken at least 2 years off the war. Britain had the upper hand. America's entry into the conflict tipped the scales. However, the fact that Hitler chose to attack The Soviet Union and moved troops to the Eastern Front meant that the allies had an easier job of landing in France and quickly advancing while the German forces were held up by the Russian forces and the weather.
There are so many "if's and buts", that it's impossible to put the allied victory down to just one thing.
Despite Hollywood's best attempts to rewrite History, Britain had the upper hand due to the fact that the boffins at Bletchley had obtained an Enigma machine and had cracked the "unbreakable" German code. It is acknowledged that the success of the code-breakers had taken at least 2 years off the war. Britain had the upper hand. America's entry into the conflict tipped the scales. However, the fact that Hitler chose to attack The Soviet Union and moved troops to the Eastern Front meant that the allies had an easier job of landing in France and quickly advancing while the German forces were held up by the Russian forces and the weather.
There are so many "if's and buts", that it's impossible to put the allied victory down to just one thing.
I am a lover of the history of world war two. It is fascinating at times.
One of the things I have never been able to understand is how one nation ( Germany ) managed to nearly defeat the world? I have had it explained to me many times, and have read peoples reasons, but the fact remains one country nearly defeated the world.
Hitler made the greatest mistake by sending his troops into Russia, where he thought it would be over in a matter of weeks....wrong.
I wonder had the Germans not have entered into Russia, would the outcome have been different?
Yes America did come into the war late into it, but I do believe that the war would not have been won ( certainly not sooner )if the Yanks had not entered.
Yes the Yanks charged us and we had to pay them back for years and that is a different thing entirely, but they certainly helped to bring a much more speedy end to the war, hence saving maybe millions of more lives. So for that at least I am grateful.
One of the things I have never been able to understand is how one nation ( Germany ) managed to nearly defeat the world? I have had it explained to me many times, and have read peoples reasons, but the fact remains one country nearly defeated the world.
Hitler made the greatest mistake by sending his troops into Russia, where he thought it would be over in a matter of weeks....wrong.
I wonder had the Germans not have entered into Russia, would the outcome have been different?
Yes America did come into the war late into it, but I do believe that the war would not have been won ( certainly not sooner )if the Yanks had not entered.
Yes the Yanks charged us and we had to pay them back for years and that is a different thing entirely, but they certainly helped to bring a much more speedy end to the war, hence saving maybe millions of more lives. So for that at least I am grateful.
Sex God
At the risk of being simplistic, had the Germans succeeded in invading the UK, regardless of when the Americans arrived things would have been different. Where else could the allied forces have amassed an invasion force. They should have pushed ahead and invaded first, then had a go at the Russians. That would have stopped the Americans and the other nations involved from attacking the western front.
Interestingly they and Napolean were befeated by the Russian weather haveing not taken it into consideration. Napolean lost and the Germans didn't learn from it, or assess their enemy properly or the weather.
Big German mistake was to open two fronts thus splitting their rescources.
The americans confronted with two fronts decided to let one roll back, defeat the other them turn and push back.
Interestingly they and Napolean were befeated by the Russian weather haveing not taken it into consideration. Napolean lost and the Germans didn't learn from it, or assess their enemy properly or the weather.
Big German mistake was to open two fronts thus splitting their rescources.
The americans confronted with two fronts decided to let one roll back, defeat the other them turn and push back.
Quote by flower411
I am a lover of the history of world war two. It is fascinating at times.
One of the things I have never been able to understand is how one nation ( Germany ) managed to nearly defeat the world? I have had it explained to me many times, and have read peoples reasons, but the fact remains one country nearly defeated the world.
Hitler made the greatest mistake by sending his troops into Russia, where he thought it would be over in a matter of weeks....wrong.
I wonder had the Germans not have entered into Russia, would the outcome have been different?
Yes America did come into the war late into it, but I do believe that the war would not have been won ( certainly not sooner )if the Yanks had not entered.
Yes the Yanks charged us and we had to pay them back for years and that is a different thing entirely, but they certainly helped to bring a much more speedy end to the war, hence saving maybe millions of more lives. So for that at least I am grateful.
I`ve a feeling the people of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki might argue with the comment about saving lives !!!
But there will be a hell of a lot of Jewish and Chinese people that will not argue with it.....and the RAF played a major part in the bombing of Dresden.
Sex God
Quote by tyracer
What we need is another world war!
sort this bloody mess out! :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
I think it was Einstien who said...I don't know what weapons the 3rd world war will be fought with but the 4th will be with sticks and stones...I paraphrase but I think he was probably right.
war's are about profit and the control of resources. always have been and the second world war was no exception. american business interest's helped finance hitler's coming to power along with the british royal family, jewish corporate interests in germany (krupps, bosch, siemens et all) dont think that american business and financial interests did'nt enjoy the feast of supplying both sides at a profit/interest while they watched the british empire bleed to death ready for the kill and the bretton woods agreement of 1944 that brought the dollar to prominence as the world reserve currency and american dominance of the world. the winner's no matter what the outcome would have been, no matter who came in when, was the rothchilds, j.p. morgans, goldman sachs who control and own your gordy, mandy and david of today ! iran next it seems
Quote by flower411
I am a lover of the history of world war two. It is fascinating at times.
One of the things I have never been able to understand is how one nation ( Germany ) managed to nearly defeat the world? I have had it explained to me many times, and have read peoples reasons, but the fact remains one country nearly defeated the world.
Hitler made the greatest mistake by sending his troops into Russia, where he thought it would be over in a matter of weeks....wrong.
I wonder had the Germans not have entered into Russia, would the outcome have been different?
Yes America did come into the war late into it, but I do believe that the war would not have been won ( certainly not sooner )if the Yanks had not entered.
Yes the Yanks charged us and we had to pay them back for years and that is a different thing entirely, but they certainly helped to bring a much more speedy end to the war, hence saving maybe millions of more lives. So for that at least I am grateful.
I`ve a feeling the people of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki might argue with the comment about saving lives !!!
But there will be a hell of a lot of Jewish and Chinese people that will not argue with it.....and the RAF played a major part in the bombing of Dresden.
I was merely trying to point out that lives were not being saved, it was just different civilians being butchered.
I think it has always been quite clear that The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did bring the war to an end but that the bombing of Dresden (which as you state was carried out mainly by the RAF) would not have been possible without the influx of American planes in other areas.
But was a revenge mission carried out on behalf of the English people, who had been continuously bombed in the worst years of the war. Personally I agree with this knd of war.... no holds barred !!! But that still doesn`t make any difference to the fact that nobody was trying to save lives in Dresden !!
There were possibly 20 million Chinese slaughtered by the Japanese and about 6 million Jews slaughtered by the Germans. How many more would have died had the war dragged on? No one will ever know but the dropping of the atom bombs certainly shortened the war in the Pacific. Had they not been dropped a hell of a lot more allied soldiers would have died taking Japan.
As for Dresden, was it revenge? I think the official line was that it was to soften the Germans up behind their Russian front line. I guess the only people who really know are the people who gave the orders.
all wars are for profit and resources. not about religeon, gods or the morality of right and wrong. the winners are always the money changers. the british establishment did not declare war on germany over the invasion of poland and its treaties therin. it took 5 days before the british invoked the treaty with poland when germany had already given notice and created the military resources to invade north africa (oil) and overcome their need for oil to fuel the weirmachts expansion industrialy and militarily, challenging the old world order of british empire. history is about socio-economic develoment and processes of relations in constant flux. not dates, individuals or events. the first known concentration camps, if you discount the american civil war, were in south africa/rhodesia created by the british. the first people to the german concentration camps were gypsies, trade unionist's, socialist's and communist's imediately after crystal nacht. thats not to minimise the suffering of the millions of middle class and working class jews from all over occupied europe who suffered at the hands of the nazi's. but make no mistake, hitler and his misnamed national socialist party was financed by international capital. banker's who's faith, in the main, is jewish. profit knows no boundaries. like the bail out of general motors today from taxpayers money that will not now be spent on the welfare of the taxpayers, the american government paid general motors compensation for the destruction of the german opel factory it owned, in 1946 out of the marshall aid plan. war is about profit for those who own and death and destruction for the "owned"
all wars are for profit and resources. not about religeon, gods or the morality of right and wrong. the winners are always the money changers. the british establishment did not declare war on germany over the invasion of poland and its treaties therin. it took 5 days before the british invoked the treaty with poland when germany had already given notice and created the military resources to invade north africa (oil) and overcome their need for oil to fuel the weirmachts expansion industrialy and militarily, challenging the old world order of british empire. history is about socio-economic develoment and processes of relations in constant flux. not dates, individuals or events. the first known concentration camps, if you discount the american civil war, were in south africa/rhodesia created by the british. the first people to the german concentration camps were gypsies, trade unionist's, socialist's and communist's imediately after crystal nacht. thats not to minimise the suffering of the millions of middle class and working class jews from all over occupied europe who suffered at the hands of the nazi's. but make no mistake, hitler and his misnamed national socialist party was financed by international capital. banker's who's faith, in the main, is jewish. profit knows no boundaries. like the bail out of general motors today from taxpayers money that will not now be spent on the welfare of the taxpayers, the american government paid general motors compensation for the destruction of the german opel factory it owned, in 1946 out of the marshall aid plan. war is about profit for those who own and death and destruction for the "owned"
Quote by flower411
all wars are for profit and resources. not about religeon, gods or the morality of right and wrong. the winners are always the money changers. the british establishment did not declare war on germany over the invasion of poland and its treaties therin. it took 5 days before the british invoked the treaty with poland when germany had already given notice and created the military resources to invade north africa (oil) and overcome their need for oil to fuel the weirmachts expansion industrialy and militarily, challenging the old world order of british empire. history is about socio-economic develoment and processes of relations in constant flux. not dates, individuals or events. the first known concentration camps, if you discount the american civil war, were in south africa/rhodesia created by the british. the first people to the german concentration camps were gypsies, trade unionist's, socialist's and communist's imediately after crystal nacht. thats not to minimise the suffering of the millions of middle class and working class jews from all over occupied europe who suffered at the hands of the nazi's. but make no mistake, hitler and his misnamed national socialist party was financed by international capital. banker's who's faith, in the main, is jewish. profit knows no boundaries. like the bail out of general motors today from taxpayers money that will not now be spent on the welfare of the taxpayers, the american government paid general motors compensation for the destruction of the german opel factory it owned, in 1946 out of the marshall aid plan. war is about profit for those who own and death and destruction for the "owned"
guls ....you`ve said some stuff in there that was in my mind .....especially about the persecution of gypsies etc in concentration camps...
I also think that extermination was directed at the disabled .......
The holocaust became a Jewish issue because of the numbers involved and frankly I do find it a bit of a shame that they haven`t drawn more attention to the minorities who were also persecuted ...
But, the purpose of this post is to suggest that maybe you use a bit more punctuation and spacing !! :shock:
A lot of people will have ignored your post because it`s all crammed into one lump... and that`s a shame cos there is some relevent stuff in there ..
Every Google search I have found makes plenty of reference to the " others " who were part of the holocaust.
Yes there were more Jews killed but it always shows that it was not just the Jews, so not quite an accurate analogy.
sorry about the lack of punctuation and spacing although i hope, that amongst intelligent people, that it would not detract from the content.
we are living in a very dangerous period of history, particularily from the standpoint of technological ability and the systemic breakdown of the international financial monetary system. the only way forward for capital, is the total destruction of "the mean's of production", war ! And start again. i hope this does not sound alarmist but unfortunately, it's true.
only 3% ot total money is cash in circulation and 97% of "value" is seeking a return that is greater than the world gdp. this is why quantatative easing (buying of toxic crap) which is going onto bank balance sheets and not money in circulation, that the bank's cant lend because it does'nt exist yet. only continued lending of the "new" money (increase in money supply) can create inflation. because the money supply is still falling we are very likely to suffer deflation, tempered by the falling value of the pound. ita a catch 22.
the only way out is the destruction of spare (over) capacity.....the destruction of the means of production...plant, machinery and people and the greater indeptedness of the taxpayers left over. thats compound interest gone mad.
we are living in a very dangerous period of history, particularily from the standpoint of technological ability and the systemic breakdown of the international financial monetary system. the only way forward for capital, is the total destruction of "the mean's of production", war ! And start again. i hope this does not sound alarmist but unfortunately, it's true.
only 3% ot total money is cash in circulation and 97% of "value" is seeking a return that is greater than the world gdp. this is why quantatative easing (buying of toxic crap) which is going onto bank balance sheets and not money in circulation, that the bank's cant lend because it does'nt exist yet. only continued lending of the "new" money (increase in money supply) can create inflation. because the money supply is still falling we are very likely to suffer deflation, tempered by the falling value of the pound. ita a catch 22.
the only way out is the destruction of spare (over) capacity.....the destruction of the means of production...plant, machinery and people and the greater indeptedness of the taxpayers left over. thats compound interest gone mad.
