Now that's a rational rebuttal. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] No, I have no crystal ball to say with any certainty what would have happened had the isolationists had their way and America not fought, but I have to believe that the German defeat would still have occurred and that the Soviet Union would have had a much more dominant prescence in Europe at the conclusion. Here's why I think this:
The U.S. did not enter hostilities until the spring of 1942 following Hitler's declaration of war. For the sake of our speculation we must presume that the Pearl Harbour attack still happened but that Hitler did not declare war on the U.S. and that Rooseveldt (or rather his cabinet) did not engage in war in Europe.
The Battle of Britain had taken place in early 1941, before U.S. involvement. (pardon me, Packard geared up and built Rolls Royce Merlin V-12 engines for use in Spitfires and Mosquitos) Britain had hung on by the skin of it's teeth and had so reduced the strength of the Luftwaffe that the invasion of Britain, operation Sea Lion, was put on hold indefinately. The Luftwaffe no longer had enough planes to protect invading forces until it could rebuild same. This never happened due to events in the East.
In the summer of 1941 the ***** invaded the Soviet Union (after a diversion to Greece to bail Italy out of a pickle it had got itself into).
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cave...irective21.htm
Hitler failed to capture Moscow, owing to a late start thanks to Italy's screwups, and due to the onset of one of the coldest and most miserable Russian winters on record. Then Hitler had the brilliant idea to divert his forces including Von Paulus' Sixth army (The one that had been so effective in blitzkreig attacks in Poland) down to Stalingrad and take that city.
http://zhukov.mitsi.com/Stalingrad.htm
Von Paulus did manage to take Stalingrad's core but next year's winter trapped him in there and the entire sixth army, or what remained of it, was eventually captured. A great big part of Germanys war strength gonzo. Goering had promised Hitler that the Luftwaffe would supply the trapped army and and this was attempted, but only a 1/6th of the needed supplies got through. The cost to the Luftwaffe in losses was enormous. Then the Russians started to reclaim their lost ground.
The greatest tank battle in history was fought at Kursk. Around 2500 German Panzer IV's, Tigers and well over 3000 Russian T-34's and other heavy models blasted it out on the rolling hills of Ukraine. Germany lost., and with it lost a great measure of it's strength. No U.S. or any other Allied participation, remember. The Soviets under Rokossovsky, Vatutin and Zhukov pressed toward Berlin, slaughtering Germans along the way. The timetable of the Soviets' arrival in Berlin was not materially affected by events on the Western front. The U.S. did not supply Russia with it's guns and tanks, they made them themselves. The U.S. did supply some trucks under the lend-lease program through the Mermansk route (for which they never got paid) but in the numbers considered, that was moot.
Stalin pushed for an invasion and a continental Western front, but this was more to permit his forces to gain more ground against Germany for post-war occupation reasons than military necessity. Do you think that a dictator who had just purged most of his own General staff on paranoid delusions of revolt and had just starved millions of Ukraines cared about his losses on the battlefield? Ya think?
He wanted to control more of post-war Europe. While it is tempting to think that the U.S.' adding it's weight to allied combat in the west tied up German forces there that could have been applied to the eastern front and thus permitted Hitler to repulse the Russians, it just isn't so. Hitler was fighting a retreating action in Russia from the spring of 1943 steadily onwards and the Allied invasion of Europe wasn't to be until June 6 1944. The Russians were coming and that was that. At the end of hostilities Germany of course was depleted. Russia was not. Even had it taken longer, Russia was still manufacturing tanks, guns, everything needed to wage war in the capacity it always had. It also still had enormous populations to recruit. Hitler might just have subjugated the place had he used every advantage and taken Moscow in a timely fashion, but he didn't. From that time his fate was sealed. I'm no fan of the former Soviet Union. It was a hideous and inhuman regieme. But facts is facts.

So it didn't matter whether German soldiers occupied northern France, Belgium, Holland Norway et all (Or even England if they HAD further reduced their ability to wage war by going for that egg again) If Berlin were full of Russians and Hitler's head on a pike, those soldiers had better not be waiting for a paycheck from home.

While my earlier analogy to the U.S. 'victory' in Europe being like jumping into the ring in the 13th round and booting the fallen Mike Tyson in the head was a bit extreme, some of the principal holds. Germany's ability to wage war had been severely curtailed by the forces of france Britain, Canada, Australia, et al before 1942 and was severely cut back after that time in theaters the U.S. had no participation in.
You can't really jump in and help whack a weakened foe and then claim, "Ya couldn't have done it without me".
For Hitler's rockets and the like having more time to batter London and other British cities I must point out that just such devastation was done to German cities without it having a material effect on German ability to wage war. In any case even HAD Hitler taken England the German goose was cooked anyway.
As has been pointed out by Stephen Ambrose, the United States couldn't have afforded a Soviet Union with the vastly increased power and prescence that occupation of the greater part of Europe would have given it. Not only would valuable trading partners be lost but the recognized rival political presence would be so much stronger. (This was also the motivation for the postwar Marshall Plan which injected more than 13.3 billion American 1947 dollars into the rebuilding of ruined Europe. The populations of these devastated regions were ripe for the sweet promises of hawkers of communist propaganda and must be prevented from falling that way. No point waging war to prevent Soviet takeover by aggression only to see them get those countries by default)

I have no crystal ball of course and intangibles not forseen could have resulted in a different outcome. We have to look dispassionatly at the known facts and decide what is most likely based on them, not on emotion or prejudice.
I was pleased to hear at last another voice, CaptainQuint in his second post, mention the school history texts are written to pass the scrutiny of school authorities and thus they conform more to the desired idiology than to historical fact. Sadly these tracts along with movies of liberal license such as 'Pearl Harbor' and 'U-571' are the source of most peoples lore on WW2, and what the American part consisted of. (Americans didn't capture an Enigma machine, the Poles conscripted to build them sneaked one out to England and the British cracked it at Bletchley Park. Some Americans were on the team.)

Again I have no wish to underrate the U.S. contribution or role in the events of that conflict. Their very presence caused Italy to capitulate and sign an armistace on the eve of the landings at Salerno! They didn't want to fight ya! (Didn't much want to fight anyone. There are photos that show lines of literally hundreds and hundreds of grinning Italian infantry in the African desert walking into captivity guarded by a few British soldiers with rifles =)
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/70-7_12.htm
That campaign was international as well, with representitives from essentially every allied nation including Indian Gurkhas with their oddly curved knives!

As far as making a sports reference and naming an MVP for the war, that would either have to go to England, which stood alone against the German assault, bankrupting their world prominence, commonwealth and empire in the effort, (from which they have never and never shall recover) or to the Soviet Union, who applied such a massive amount of war materiel and manpower against German armed forces from the East that they streamrolled their way back to Germany and right to the capitol city by sheer weight of metal and men. (and women).
Things would have been different if it were not for the U.S. participation in Europe alright, but I doubt it would be that Germany would have won. I am in no way looking to take away any credit when I say you guys were great, but late. The handwriting was on the wall.
That's my opinion.

 

WOW!!! I am so glad I came across this thread! This has got to be some of the best reading I have done in a while. I will not get involved other than to say "please keep it coming, I don't want it to end." I could sit around a camp fire for hours with you guys....I'd even supply the beer. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

 

Interesting points of view from a generally conservative ATV bulletin board crowd! I will state my opinion on a few subjects posted here:

1. RR was a great President compared to any of the Democrats from Johnson on. He let us hold up our heads again and started bringing the economy back around. Remember 16% interest rates? I do, and as a career banker hope they never come back around. He was a great Patriotic leader at a time when America needed to feel good about itself again.

2. Anyone who thinks the US was not the main player whose military might was essential for an Allied victory is just lacking common sense and a real knowledge of history. The idea of war is to defeat your enemy, not take casualties!

3. Liberals are the enemy who want to take away YOUR rights, especially 2nd amendment rights. Time and time again they prove that the rules don't apply to them only to you while they say they are for the common man. Don't believe it for a minute, virtually all politicians are out for themselves!

Vented! Whew!

 

! At that I am speechless. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

 

Would WW2 have been won without America? I'd say very unlikely. We literally won the European war based on better and more plentiful war supplies. The US could produce more war material, and transfer it in a more organized fashion than anyone. Patton's dash across France was exciting, but it was the Red Ball Express that made it possible. The US supplied the bulk of warships that won the Battle of the Atlantic - and supplied two key weapons systems that did the U boats in - the VLR Liberator aircraft, and the jeep carrier. In addition, NCR manufactured the early mechanical computers used to break the Enigma code, a large part of winning in the Atlantic. The Polish secret service cracked the Enigma code, the US did it on a huge scale. If the submarine offensive had not been defeated, the UK would probably have had to sue for peace in mid 1942. In the absence of Lend-Lease, they might have tossed in the towel even sooner. Could Germany have defeated the USSR without the UK and US in the fight? Quite possibly - they were fairly close to doing just that in '42. Could the war have been won without US troops? Except for the early N Africa action, US and British troops fought together in every major campaign, so that is a question that simply cannot be answered.

Even before 1941, US technology and troops were in action. When the Bismark had sunk the Hood, and was escaping into the North Atlantic, it was a PBY patrol aircraft with British markings but operated by a US Navy crew that found it. And how did they know to look there? Because the Bismark had been spotted a few hours earlier by a 'neutral' US Coast Guard cutter, who clandestinely radioed the contact in blatant disregard of the rules of neutrality. Now, what was a Coast Guard cutter doing, cruising east of Iceland? Looking for the Bismark, in an even greater disregard of neutrality.

I prefer to think of that war as a team effort. If you start singling out one player or another, you dishonor a great deal of bravery and sacrifice. And that discussion disregards the contributions of the Russians, who took horrendous casualties.

I do question the European line of thought that we in the US should come running every time they start quarrelling with each other. WW2 could have been avoided entirely, had the UK and France acted more decisively in the mid to late 1930's, when Hitler started flaunting his abrogation of the Treaty of Versailles, then the remilitarization of the Rhine, then the occupation of Austria and the Czech republic. The start of that war was entirely the responsibility of the European nations, and their much vaunted diplomatic skills failed, leading to death on an unimaginable scale, and the almost complete extermination of European Jews. One can even trace the rise of fanaticism in Germany to France and the Treaty of Versailles in 1918. The Marshall Plan, authored in the US, insured that this did not happen again. The US did not singlehandedly win that war, but it was not obligated to clean up a mess made by Chamberlain and Dadalier. They could have stopped it. And they didn't.

As for Reagan and the Cold War - he beat them. And he did it the capitalist way - he outspent them. They were right, come time to hang us, we'd sell them the rope. But they couldn't afford it. The military buildup, Star Wars, all were designed with one purpose in mind - to bankrupt the USSR. At that, they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

Whether or not what followed is better than the cold war remains to be seen.

 

{John O posted before I was done typing, he has made some good points. The US had an impact but wasn't a solo player. ]

Until someone comes along with a better way of looking back at the place that the US held in WW II,
Glenlivet has my vote for giving the best synopsis of the US's place. I haven't read a lot about the details of the history but all that I've read shows that Glen Levit is pretty close to right, meaning correct, not the political persuasion.

I follow another forum that has many professional and amateur historians. There have been many small discussions about the role of various powers in different points in history. They play an interesting game of conjecture where someone will propose an alternate history. Something like the possibility of an American fighter squadron or destroyer bumping into the Japanese navy prior to Pearl Harbor. What would be different? Would the US Navy been able to react fast enough to get battleship row cleared and ready for a fight, did we have enough air power to put up enough of a fight to have changed the course, what if Hitler didn't declare war on the US when he did, on and on. Pretty interesting to sit on the sidelines and read the responses from people who are well read and well educated in history play that game. In the discussions about Europe, the US played a part but was surely not the 800 pound gorilla that some of you want to believe.

Can anyone write a counterpoint to Glenlivet's points?

Tom

 

While not educated beyond common knowledge on WW II, I do feel that Glenlivet was mistaken on Lincoln as a great president.

My previous posts give some of the reasons why I disagree.

As far as WWII goes, I agree that it was a team effort with the US playing a key role. However, to begin to argue an MVP or to name one country as the sole reason the war was won or lost is a discussion without point. It is fine to examine the American, British, Canadian, and other Allied contributions and losses and make conclusions based on those facts.

It is generally accepted that Michael Jordan was the MVP for the Chicago Bulls. Could the Bulls have won a championship without Michael Jordan? Probably not. Could Michael Jordan have won a championship by himself? Certianly not.

Historians, in order to be so, must leave patriotism and passions at the door when examining a particular point or event in time. As such they must often times give the devil his due in order to properly record or examine events. Very seldom does this happen. As such we must read arguments from all sides, even if we disagree, in order to get a true and accurate picture of the past.

 

Gotta respond again - to say that Britain, France, and the USSR had depleted German wartime capacity by 1943 flies in the face of production figures. They were, in fact, rising, and peaked in late 1944. France was actually contributing to the German effort at that time, not taking away from it. And, yes, the western front did tie up a lot of troops that could have pushed the balance on the eastern front, not to mention the 500,000 or so in Italy. Enough to stop the Russians? That will never be known.

None of the principles regarding the US jumping in at the last minute and knocking Germany out hold true. After 1943, the Germans were fighting like fiends. The supposedly beaten German army after Kursk still held the vastly larger USSR armies up for another two years, invoking a few million casualties in the process. I read a book written by a French pilot in the RAF - called The Big Show. The author (Pierre Clostermann) ended up leading a flight of Hawker Tempests, and they lost a lot of pilots in early 1945, eight out of twelve in one attack. The Germans had not stopped fighting, even then. Much of the German mobility on the eastern front was lost, because the US Army Air Force had systematically destroyed the German's fuel refining capability, cutting off supplies of gasoline. No air support (which was quite effective in stopping tanks - Rudel was reported to have destroyed hundreds of Russian tanks with his cannon armed Stuka), no high mobility for their armor. The thousands of tanks the Russians built were aided in no small part by machine tools and production technology supplied by the US. It's no miracle that the USSR under a paranoid Stalin was able to get production going so quickly, they were guided by the masters of rapid production.

The only true conclusion that can be reached is that a team of nations defeated Germany, Japan, and Italy. And that people were dying right up until the end.

 

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/BigL/index.html

This is for the folks who don't believe the US involvement in WWII was key to Allied victory. This was a war of logistics and both Stalin and Churchill have been quoted that without Lend-Lease and US involvement that the Germans could have won. Wars are not fought without machines and materials and the ability to position these assets at the correct time and place. The US war production was overwhelmingly superior to all others, becoming over 60% of the Allies total by the end of the war. It's good to have National pride, all life is precious, but some folks on this posting aren't looking at the big picture of how WWII was really won. For you doubters, go to the above link and enjoy the reading then come back a little more enlightened. Maybee after this discussion we can talk about Economic Indicators and their impact on interest rates and Markets around the world. That one should be real lively!

 

That sums it up nicely. I have a good idea that if one were to ask the surviving veterans of the conflict, who were over there (and I have had long discussions with many in my career as paramedic) that's what one would hear.

Thank you.
Mike