International Was American involvement in world war 2 key to victory?

[Rholk]

A lot of the same resentful little fucks have been cheerleading China's alleged takeover as the world's premier superpower over the last decade. It's gotten really quiet over the last 18 months though, because Chyna about to tailspin and wither the fuck away. The postponement of it even surpassing the US in nominal GDP is indefinite. Not in this lifetime buds, sorry.

I remember people claiming that the "New Silk Road" was about to takeover the world.

It has gotten awefully quiet on that lill project aswell

 

[OneOfOne]

I think its safe to say that without America's involvement Communism would not have survived WW2 and gone on to kill 100,000,000 people. Thanks America.

 

[Cole train]

Whats crazy is in about 10 years all WW2 vets will be gone

 

[plataoplombo]

I don't know if it was THE key to winning but it was definitely a key. Our resources and manufacturing ability was a great material contributer to the effort. All thanks to us being separated by the Atlantic.

 

[Siver!]

A lot of the same resentful little fucks have been cheerleading China's alleged takeover as the world's premier superpower over the last decade. It's gotten really quiet over the last 18 months though, because Chyna about to tailspin and wither the fuck away. The postponement of it even surpassing the US in nominal GDP is indefinite. Not in this lifetime buds, sorry.

I only really see Americans post about America vs China.

I'm not really sure I've seen anyone else comment on this fantasy battle.

Anyone who says either China is imminently becoming the world's greatest super power, OR, China is about to wither and die are both equally stupid.

There's no basis for either sentiment, it's just meaningless rhetoric.

 

[USA!USA!]

There's just no real reason to take pride, or feel embarrassment, about this for anyone here since none of us were there to fight. One really has to have no personal achievements to speak of if one has to hang one's pride on such things, although I guess that isn't all that uncommon.

Not true. Americans do take pride in it because many of our families had people (some of them who were lost) who went to Europe or the pacific to fight. My grandfather was part of the crew of a B-17 in Europe. There are plenty of reasons to still take pride in what was accomplished by our ancestors with how they fought to defeat the Nazis.

 

[USA!USA!]

But the question in the OP is not did they make a difference; rather it's whether they made the difference. Just sayin'.

I’d argue that they did. They were helping to prop up Russia with resources to continue their fight before they were even directly involved. They did more than just fight and were crucial to the success of the Allies.

 

[aerius]

But let's not forget that Stalin was an ally of Hitler until Adolf double crossed Russia and broke their treaty, and the US was playing isolationist tango until Japan did us dirty. So both America and Russia were tacitly letting Europe burn (not counting all our aid to the UK) under fascist expansion until our sovereignty was violated.


That being said, Truman could have nuked Berlin.

The Soviets had to ally with the Nazis at the start of the war since their army was in shambles after the 1930s purges and in no position to fight a war. Stalin signed the pact to buy time for rebuilding their army and getting it unfucked, knowing that Hitler was going to backstab him at some point. Without those 2 extra years to scrape up everything they had and throw a meat shield army together, they would've lost Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, and many of the key cities west of the Volga.

As for the US, yeah, they were isolationist at the time and I don't blame them either. Europe tends to go up in flames on a pretty regular basis, been happening since before the US was even a nation. US was probably going "awww fuck...not this shit again..." when the shooting started in 1939.

 

[Loiosh]

Not true. Americans do take pride in it because many of our families had people (some of them who were lost) who went to Europe or the pacific to fight. My grandfather was part of the crew of a B-17 in Europe. There are plenty of reasons to still take pride in what was accomplished by our ancestors with how they fought to defeat the Nazis.

My grandfathers were a mechanic for the Luftwaffe and an Italian submariner.

Not a lot of pride in my family coming out of WWII.

 

[Loiosh]

I’d argue that they did. They were helping to prop up Russia with resources to continue their fight before they were even directly involved. They did more than just fight and were crucial to the success of the Allies.

There's no doubt they did.

Someone in this thread said they produced ten thousand planes but I'm pretty sure the number was actually fifty thousand. I watched a documentary on American production engineering in WWII and it was almost unbelievable what they were able to accomplish.

If all they did was manufacture and support Britain and the Russians with materiel during WWII they'd have to be considered an overwhelming influence, but obviously they did a hell of a lot more than that.

Russia can't be ignored, though, the lion's share of the Wehrmacht was mired on the eastern front; my German grandfather was captured there and spent time in a Russian POW camp.

I read this a very long time ago, it's a series of interviews with German generals immediately following WWII and they mostly blamed underestimating Russia and attacking them too close to winter without sufficient equipment.

 

[avenue94]

So here's the thing. Britain was about to LOSE the Battle of Britain, this seems to get forgotten. The key to any invasion was to take out the RAF. Before the destruction of the RAF took place, Germany pivoted towards Russia.

Source? They were not. Germany voluntarily shifted its priorities from airfields to civilian targets. And even if they hadn't, the UK had the option of withdrawing its fighters to Northern England to put them out of German reach.

You also misunderstand Sealion. The RAF was not the main guarantor of UK, it was the RN. Germany never came close to neutralizing it, nor having control of the channel. Germany didn't even have enough sealift capacity.

Churchill admitted Germant were on course to achieve their aims, and after that, invasion was perfectly possible. Yes Britain is detached, yes it's an island nation, yes it was belligerent and liable to fight back, but all that is misty eyed hyperbole.

Churchill's memoirs should be taken with a very big grain of salt on claims like this. The UK never seriously entertained peace negotiations at the juncture you're looking at.

Reading Churchill's World War 2 series is both fascinating and terrifying.

As I've mentioned above, Churchill's writings here are not those of a historian, they are mostly memoir, part history. Valuable in their own way, but not serious historical scholarship in the sense of what a professional historian would create.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Whats crazy is in about 10 years all WW2 vets will be gone

My grandfather was born in 21 and was in the war for about 3 years, died at 98 in 2020 because of covid and was one of about 1000 world war 2 veterans alive in my country. i imagine covid killed a bunch of those remaining. the ones still alive in 10 years will be around 110. doubt there will be more than a dozen of those left in the world, if that.

We'll be left with dipshits yelling SOURCE!!!! during every ww2 discussion...

 

[Cole train]

My grandfather was born in 21 and was in the war for about 3 years, died at 98 in 2020 because of covid and was one of about 1000 world war 2 veterans alive in my country. i imagine covid killed a bunch of those remaining. the ones still alive in 10 years will be around 110. doubt there will be more than a dozen of those left in the world, if that.

We'll be left with dipshits yelling SOURCE!!!! during every ww2 discussion...

 

[Siver!]

Source? They were not. Germany voluntarily shifted its priorities from airfields to civilian targets. And even if they hadn't, the UK had the option of withdrawing its fighters to Northern England to put them out of German reach.

You also misunderstand Sealion. The RAF was not the main guarantor of UK, it was the RN. Germany never came close to neutralizing it, nor having control of the channel. Germany didn't even have enough sealift capacity.

Churchill's memoirs should be taken with a very big grain of salt on claims like this. The UK never seriously entertained peace negotiations at the juncture you're looking at.

As I've mentioned above, Churchill's writings here are not those of a historian, they are mostly memoir, part history. Valuable in their own way, but not serious historical scholarship in the sense of what a professional historian would create.

Which bit of that operation do you mean? The RAF was very nearly defeated in September 1940.

If the enemy had persisted in heavy attacks against [the airfields of the South and South East England] and damaged their operations rooms or telephone communications the whole intricate organisation of Fighter Command might have been broken down. This would have meant not merely the maltreatment of London, but the loss to us of the perfected control of our own air in the decisive area.... it was therefore with a sense of relief that Fighter Command felt the German attack turn on to London on September 7, and concluded that the enemy had changed his plan. Goering should certainly have persevered against the airfields, on whose organisation and combination the whole fighting power of our Air Force at this moment depended. By departing from the classic principles of war... he made a foolish mistake.

This same period had seriously drained the strength of Fighter Command as a whole. The Command had lost in this fortnight 103 pilots killed and 128 seriously wounded, while 466 Spitfires and Hurricanes had been destroyed or seriously damaged. Out of a total pilot strength of about a thousand nearly a quarter had been lost.

After being let off the hook in favour of militarily ineffective raids on London, the RAF then ran bombing raids from Boulogne to Antwerp on September 15.

At Antwerp particularly heavy losses were inflicted. On September 17, as we now know, the Fuehrer decided to postpone "Sea Lion" indefinitely... in July 1941 it was postponed again by Hitler till the spring of 1942, "by which time the Russian campaign will be completed"... Thus perished Operation "Sea Lion". And September 15 may stand as the date of its demise.

This is the premise I am working from.

Also, damn, I wouldn't knock Churchill's books. "The Second World War can be read by students of the period as a memoir by a leading participant, rather than a comprehensive history by a professional and detached historian. The Second World War, particularly the period from 1940 to 1942 when Britain fought with the support of the Empire and a few Allies, was the climax of Churchill's career and his inside story of those days is unique and invaluable." I'm assuming your basing this on this excerpt from Wiki, but the detail is unique.

As an interesting aside, Britain was thoroughly engaged in propaganda aimed at American audiences to convince them Britain was not a lost cause. They even invented a myth that they thwarted a German land invasion that never happened 'by setting the sea using flaming oil'. Such an invasion attempt never happened, yet some will suggest to this day that it might have happened.

All of this is the real deal - not that I'm discounting the Royal Navy and the impact it might have had, it was still a bigger sea fleet than Germany had, even when stretched all around the oceans. But I fully believe Germany would have invaded Britain had they not made numerous blunders during the Battle of Britain, and the even bigger, most monumental blunder of them all - pivoting towards Russia because they expected a quick and easy conflict. They got anything but, and that is the whole basis of the USSR being so incredibly vital to the demise of Nazi Germany. They swamped the Germans out East, and that was that.

 

[Arashikage4Life]

Russia was always going to be the main enemy in a Hitler-led Reich. Britain wasn't the real enemy, thus the pivoting towards Russia. They needed to conquer Russia and eliminate their population in order to provide living space for German emigrants and also to obtain oil and grain resources to finance further conquests, specifically the Middle East. Conquering Britain would have been an added bonus, but the focus was always going to be on Russia.

 

[Blayt7hh]

Whats crazy is in about 10 years all WW2 vets will be gone

Mostly the case already. If you turned 18 in 1945 you would be 97 years old today

 

[avenue94]

After being let off the hook in favour of militarily ineffective raids on London, the RAF then ran bombing raids from Boulogne to Antwerp on September 15.

This is what I meant by the Germans voluntarily switched targets. There isn't a counterfactual here unless your counterfactual argument is "What if Hitler wasn't so bat shit insane, even though said insanity was integral to him"

This same period had seriously drained the strength of Fighter Command as a whole. The Command had lost in this fortnight 103 pilots killed and 128 seriously wounded, while 466 Spitfires and Hurricanes had been destroyed or seriously damaged. Out of a total pilot strength of about a thousand nearly a quarter had been lost.

Again, the UK had the option of withdrawing their fighters and pilots out of reach of German raids, in exchange for leaving their population centers less well defended. As Germany's experience demonstrates, this would have been a sustainable strategy for the UK in terms of staying in the war.

Also, damn, I wouldn't knock Churchill's books. "The Second World War can be read by students of the period as a memoir by a leading participant, rather than a comprehensive history by a professional and detached historian. The Second World War, particularly the period from 1940 to 1942 when Britain fought with the support of the Empire and a few Allies, was the climax of Churchill's career and his inside story of those days is unique and invaluable."

I'm knocking Churchill's works as a historical overview. They are incredibly valuable as a memoir and primary source. But what makes they valuable primary sources is also what makes them incomplete or flawed historical works: lack of access to German, US and USSR archives and the author's biases. In the case of the latter, Churchill frequently implicitly and explicitly shapes his writings to portray himself favorably or otherwise color a story to fit the narrative he wants to present readers.

But I fully believe Germany would have invaded Britain had they not made numerous blunders during the Battle of Britain, and the even bigger, most monumental blunder of them all - pivoting towards Russia because they expected a quick and easy conflict.

The success of the invasion would have mostly boiled down to four things.
1. Could Germany neutralize the Home Fleet?
2. Could Germany neutralize the RAF?
3. Did Germany have enough sealift capacity for a large enough first day invasion force?
4. Did Germany have enough capacity to supply an invasion force in heavy combat?

The answer to every single one of these questions is a resounding No, and mind you, the a "no" to any of these questions would have guaranteed German failure. I really don't you think grasp how much of a feat an amphibious invasion is and what it requires of a country and its military.

 

[Prutfis]

It was certainly a big part. The untouched industrial capabilities and manpower.
However, initial us isolationism also had a part in the war being longer than it had to be.

 

[Siver!]

This is what I meant by the Germans voluntarily switched targets. There isn't a counterfactual here unless your counterfactual argument is "What if Hitler wasn't so bat shit insane, even though said insanity was integral to him"

Again, the UK had the option of withdrawing their fighters and pilots out of reach of German raids, in exchange for leaving their population centers less well defended. As Germany's experience demonstrates, this would have been a sustainable strategy for the UK in terms of staying in the war.

I'm knocking Churchill's works as a historical overview. They are incredibly valuable as a memoir and primary source. But what makes they valuable primary sources is also what makes them incomplete or flawed historical works: lack of access to German, US and USSR archives and the author's biases. In the case of the latter, Churchill frequently implicitly and explicitly shapes his writings to portray himself favorably or otherwise color a story to fit the narrative he wants to present readers.

The success of the invasion would have mostly boiled down to four things.
1. Could Germany neutralize the Home Fleet?
2. Could Germany neutralize the RAF?
3. Did Germany have enough sealift capacity for a large enough first day invasion force?
4. Did Germany have enough capacity to supply an invasion force in heavy combat?

The answer to every single one of these questions is a resounding No, and mind you, the a "no" to any of these questions would have guaranteed German failure. I really don't you think grasp how much of a feat an amphibious invasion is and what it requires of a country and its military.

Churchill frequently refers to writings from the Enemy, so I think there there is plenty of balance. But obviously, yes, it's his perspective, and the inclusion of writings from the Enemy are used to specifically weigh up the prevailing thoughts at the time, and whether they were right in their assumptions or not - and many of the time, Churchill and the government were not correct in those assumptions, as I'm sure you can imagine.

Anyway.

What is not in doubt is the RAF was taking a hammering in South and South East Britain. If Germany had persevered, the RAF would have been hugely ineffective. So the answer to 2 is not a resounding no, unless the question is 2. DID Germany neutralize the RAF - no it did not. Could it have done? Absolutely it could have done. Churchill was only too aware that he was looking at rookies with potentially ruined operations and communications. They would have been fodder.

The British army had already lost the Battle of France and should have been routed but for a miracle at Dunkirk. Churchill was already teetering on a negotiated peace earlier that same year. The RAF was then taking a battering before Goering (not Hitler) starting making unforced errors. Hitler then made the biggest one of the lot - USSR.

Britain was let off the hook. It survived, replete with its RAF.

Actually, when I read your posts back, I notice you're not really saying a whole lot different other than that you are adamant Germany couldn't have invaded Britain. I'm saying it could have if it had won air superiority, which it was on its way to achieving, but how successful it would have been beyond that is uncertain. Britain was actively expecting them to try it, which is a far cry from 'no possible way'. There's a question about how effective the Luftwaffe would have been against the Royal Navy even if the RAF was rendered ineffectual. The whole thing could have been an unmitigated disaster if Germany had tried it, but we just don't know. What we do know is Britain had faced numerous defeats against Nazi Germany, and had been absolutely embarrassed alongside its allies in the Battle of France in a matter of weeks in what should have been an evenly pitched battle.

Weeks. It was a demolition job.

I won't be taking anything for granted about what Nazi Germany could or could not have done. I've no doubt if the Battle of France hadn't played out like it had, people would be arguing that couldn't possibly have happened either. It wasn't just possible, the rout was real.

 

[avenue94]

Churchill frequently refers to writings from the Enemy, so I think there there is plenty of balance. But obviously, yes, it's his perspective, and the inclusion of writings from the Enemy are used to specifically weigh up the prevailing thoughts at the time, and whether they were right in their assumptions or not - and many of the time, Churchill and the government were not correct in those assumptions, as I'm sure you can imagine.

He had access to a fraction of the sources and research later, professional historians had access to. You also seem to not grasp: Churchill wrote his histories for primarily two reasons:
1. To make money, he became effectively worth tens of millions of pounds based off of these works.
2. His works were meant to advance his favored narratives and views. He was racing other Americans and English memoirists to provide a first draft of history. His works are a big reason the myth of "England alone and on the brink of surrender" is so persistent when historical evidence points the other way.

The British army had already lost the Battle of France and should have been routed but for a miracle at Dunkirk. Churchill was already teetering on a negotiated peace earlier that same year. The RAF was then taking a battering before Goering (not Hitler) starting making unforced errors. Hitler then made the biggest one of the lot - USSR.

Again, the British never seriously considered surrendering. What historical evidence is there of this?

I'm saying it could have if it had won air superiority, which it was on its way to achieving, but how successful it would have been beyond that is uncertain

They could not have successfully invaded the UK.
1. The German air force performed abysmally against the Dunkirk evacuation and only sank a handful of stationary ships. They effectively had no ability to directly harm the UK Home Fleet because Germany didn't develop air dropped torpedoes and armor piercing bombs until much later in the war. Sinking warships without those two weapons is next to impossible, especially capital ships.
2. There is no way, short of aliens intervening, that the Germans could have conjured enough shipping to transport the invasion force and supply several divisions in heavy combat. It's impossible. Period. Asking whether the Germans could have done this isn't a counterfactual, it's literally denying reality and asking if magic exists. That's how outlandish a premise it is.