PDA

View Full Version : What would have happened if the US had been one of the allies in 1939?



Kipruss
21 Sep 04,, 10:16
Just theorising:

Would the war have ended prior to 1945 if the US had sent its full military might to support the British and its Commonwealth allies against the Germans and Italians?

The Lend-Lease agreement (March 1941) was a huge help to the British (and later the Soviets) but would have been even better if significant US forces had been in the ships and aircraft etc.

Did the intervening years, prior to December 1941, give the US enough time to put its extraordinary manufacturing system into a war footing that may even have meant an early engagement would have been counterproductive? I have read that the US had less than 2,000 aircraft in 1939 but rose to around 80,000 aircraft at its peak.

Would the holocaust have been as bad, or worse, with an early engagement?

Would Britain have been one of the Superpowers if the war had ended without the same level of damage to its civillian infrastructure and manpower?

Amled
21 Sep 04,, 14:35
The strong Isolationist tendencies in the US at that time would probably have caused FDR to have have lost the upcoming election.
Putting an even more Neutralist oriented party in control of the US government, and maybe even putting the kabosh on Lend-Lease.

Donnie
22 Sep 04,, 20:29
Just theorising:

Would the war have ended prior to 1945 if the US had sent its full military might to support the British and its Commonwealth allies against the Germans and Italians?

The Lend-Lease agreement (March 1941) was a huge help to the British (and later the Soviets) but would have been even better if significant US forces had been in the ships and aircraft etc.

Did the intervening years, prior to December 1941, give the US enough time to put its extraordinary manufacturing system into a war footing that may even have meant an early engagement would have been counterproductive? I have read that the US had less than 2,000 aircraft in 1939 but rose to around 80,000 aircraft at its peak.

Would the holocaust have been as bad, or worse, with an early engagement?

Would Britain have been one of the Superpowers if the war had ended without the same level of damage to its civillian infrastructure and manpower?

entering the war early would have had disasterouse effects on the US, both politicaly at home, and abroad, the US would have been impotent abroad, completly at the mercy of europe, and imperialism would have reinged free, not to mention a destroyed germany, with no hope of recovery after the US went back into its shell.

Static Caster
26 Sep 04,, 05:43
If the Americans entered the war earlier, there may not have been enough time for Russia to advance as far west as it did and MAYBE, we wouldn't have had an East & West Germany afterwards.

Had the Americans stayed out of the conflict entirely, the Soviet Union would have changed the course of Europe altogether I think....

Donnie
27 Sep 04,, 17:11
If the Americans entered the war earlier, there may not have been enough time for Russia to advance as far west as it did and MAYBE, we wouldn't have had an East & West Germany afterwards.

Had the Americans stayed out of the conflict entirely, the Soviet Union would have changed the course of Europe altogether I think....

if the US had gotten involved at the onset, there wouldnt have been a russian front for germany, russia would probably have never gotten involved in the war, or worse yet, they may have supported germany.

Officer of Engineers
27 Sep 04,, 17:15
Actually, the turning point was not about American participation but the Sudetenland. Had the French and Brits supported the Czechs, the Wehrmacht would have been wiped from the face of the earth.

tarek
27 Sep 04,, 20:37
these days there is another "hopeful" who would surrender will in deserts and bring the world to ruin

Blademaster
27 Sep 04,, 22:07
Actually, the turning point was not about American participation but the Sudetenland. Had the French and Brits supported the Czechs, the Wehrmacht would have been wiped from the face of the earth.

How could the French and Brits supported the Germans? Did they have any sufficient expedionary forces available at that time?

If not, that might explain the reasons for Chamberlain's "appeasements". Everybody keeps calling Chamberlain a coward but nobody remembers that he was singly responsible for restarting the British military which was in serious decline. He was the one that made several huge orders to build more warships and planes and started the path to military innovation. Without those things, even Churchill would have a very very tough time standing up to the German war machine.

The credit for the buildup of the British war machine goes to Chamberlain, not Churchill.

Remember before the war broke out, the world was in midst of a great depression, and England was not immune to it. To deal with the depression, British was forced to make several cuts in the military budget and have an empire army and navy on the cheap. Chamberlain was the one who changed the direction of that military thinking.

Officer of Engineers
27 Sep 04,, 22:35
How could the French and Brits supported the Germans? Did they have any sufficient expedionary forces available at that time?

You mean supporting the Czechs? The Wehrmacht would have bled white trying to take the Sudetenland. Unlike the Maginot Line, the Sudetenland fortifications left no room for manouver and the Wehrmacht would have to take those head on. Also instead of a single line, there was actual depth to the Czech defences. The Wehrmacht would be in no position to take on anybody else.


The credit for the buildup of the British war machine goes to Chamberlain, not Churchill.

Remember before the war broke out, the world was in midst of a great depression, and England was not immune to it. To deal with the depression, British was forced to make several cuts in the military budget and have an empire army and navy on the cheap. Chamberlain was the one who changed the direction of that military thinking.

The army sufferred and sufferred bad but the Royal Navy remained top notch vis-a-vi everybody else. Also, you have to consider that while the British Army was in decline, so was everybody else. The much vaunted Wehrmacht blitzkreig could not have happenned without the tanks they took/stole from the Czechs.

Blademaster
27 Sep 04,, 23:13
You mean supporting the Czechs? The Wehrmacht would have bled white trying to take the Sudetenland. Unlike the Maginot Line, the Sudetenland fortifications left no room for manouver and the Wehrmacht would have to take those head on. Also instead of a single line, there was actual depth to the Czech defences. The Wehrmacht would be in no position to take on anybody else.



The army sufferred and sufferred bad but the Royal Navy remained top notch vis-a-vi everybody else. Also, you have to consider that while the British Army was in decline, so was everybody else. The much vaunted Wehrmacht blitzkreig could not have happenned without the tanks they took/stole from the Czechs.

Sorry my bad, I meant the Czechs. How could the Czech have better tanks than the Germans? I thought Germany had their own tank producing factories?

From what I've read of your post, you are implying that Czech had better war materials producing factories than Germany.

If the Sudetenland fortications would have bled Germany to blood, how could Germany withstood the Russian fortications for a long period of time?

Officer of Engineers
28 Sep 04,, 03:54
Sorry my bad, I meant the Czechs. How could the Czech have better tanks than the Germans? I thought Germany had their own tank producing factories?

From what I've read of your post, you are implying that Czech had better war materials producing factories than Germany.


The Czechs had their own Panzer Is and IIs that the Wehrmacht took for their own.


If the Sudetenland fortications would have bled Germany to blood, how could Germany withstood the Russian fortications for a long period of time?

One reason and one reason only, Stalin's purges. Even the famous Field Marshall Zuhkov was freezing his butt in Siberia. On paper, the Red Army was at least on par, if not superior, than the Wehrmacht. However, when you start giving up 2 million prisoners per campaign, someone was obviously humping the dog (and that someone was Stalin).

Ziska
28 Sep 04,, 04:08
The german military machine is overrated in the eyes of a lot of laymen. Yes, blitzkrieg was awesome and devestating. But their tanks, rifles & aircraft weren't the killing machines popular belief holds.

philipjd
05 Oct 04,, 23:21
The Czechs had their own Panzer Is and IIs that the Wehrmacht took for their own.



One reason and one reason only, Stalin's purges. Even the famous Field Marshall Zuhkov was freezing his butt in Siberia. On paper, the Red Army was at least on par, if not superior, than the Wehrmacht. However, when you start giving up 2 million prisoners per campaign, someone was obviously humping the dog (and that someone was Stalin).

The reason why Zhukov was freezing his butt off in Siberia was not political (Internal) but he had just wipped the Japanese invasion of Russia (a little known war this one - didn;t last long and the vaunted Japnaese army and airforce were seriously trashed at this time).

regards
Phil

philipjd
05 Oct 04,, 23:28
entering the war early would have had disasterouse effects on the US, both politicaly at home, and abroad, the US would have been impotent abroad, completly at the mercy of europe, and imperialism would have reinged free, not to mention a destroyed germany, with no hope of recovery after the US went back into its shell.

Were all operating under the same pressures - none of the domestic populations wanted to go to war for any reason - Hitlers breach of the Munich accord shattered the DELUSIONs of western peoples and that opened up the political agenda to the politicians that eventually allowed Briatin and France to declare war.

A lot of allowances are made to FDR for working around public opinion in the states, but none is given to Chamberlian/Deladier who operated under the same constrictions.

A final point on this - if Pearl Harbour had not happened would the US have entered the war at all?

regards

cheers

Donnie
06 Oct 04,, 18:25
Were all operating under the same pressures - none of the domestic populations wanted to go to war for any reason - Hitlers breach of the Munich accord shattered the DELUSIONs of western peoples and that opened up the political agenda to the politicians that eventually allowed Briatin and France to declare war.

A lot of allowances are made to FDR for working around public opinion in the states, but none is given to Chamberlian/Deladier who operated under the same constrictions.

the problem with compareing the domestic pressure of europe and that of the US is that europe was a world away. and the US already sent thousands of troops to thier death in the family fued of WWI.


A final point on this - if Pearl Harbour had not happened would the US have entered the war at all?

i believe we would have had to eventualy. but we were involved in the war from the begining, with the oil embargo on japan to keep them from taking french possesions, and to stop japans agression in china, and lend lease. eventualy this was going to pi$$ them off enough to attack us, if not japan then certainly germany. pobably on the eastern coastline.

philipjd
07 Oct 04,, 00:01
the problem with compareing the domestic pressure of europe and that of the US is that europe was a world away. and the US already sent thousands of troops to thier death in the family fued of WWI.



i believe we would have had to eventualy. but we were involved in the war from the begining, with the oil embargo on japan to keep them from taking french possesions, and to stop japans agression in china, and lend lease. eventualy this was going to pi$$ them off enough to attack us, if not japan then certainly germany. pobably on the eastern coastline.

Sorry to all you USA people, but one of 'your problems' is that you do not get out and about enough in the world - where principle is concerned distance is irrelevent. Either domestic pressure is a valid reason or it isn't. With regards to the US eventually entering, yes I think it would, because the Nazi regine is not 'nice' and the unofficial war would eventually become official. But without Pearl (which was inevitable anyway) it would have taken much longer and probably, as surmised by previous poster, the Russians would have won and the world we know today would be a bit different.

Family fued - that's a very patronising way of labelling a conflict in which millions of people (on both sides) died fighting for, 'place in the sun' 'resetting the balance' I can both believe and 'respect', but not because all the nations involved had some sort of family bust up - checks and balances is what governance is all about, three of the major powers did not have that built into their system of governance. We all know that going to war for an elected government is now really very difficult (back to public opinion again) but where individuals are concerned it is not so hard.

regards
Phil

Donnie
07 Oct 04,, 00:27
Sorry to all you USA people, but one of 'your problems' is that you do not get out and about enough in the world

no need to start mudslinging


- where principle is concerned distance is irrelevent. Either domestic pressure is a valid reason or it isn't.

you cant tell me it would be just as easy during WWII to get europe to fight an invasion force going into mexico, as it would for american politicians to get americans to do the same. the ramifications are completly different for both.


Family fued - that's a very patronising way of labelling a conflict in which millions of people (on both sides) died fighting for,

i found it to be quite accurate, they were warring family members, that brought along with them all the people they had treaties with. what rightouse cause was wold war I fought over? the US had a rightous roll in helping to end it, but the wars begining was meaningless and gained no purpouse other than to set the stage for world war II, which was just a continuation of the first war, germanys utter humiliation by the allies in WWI (above and beyond and against the wishes of the US) was the direct cause of hitlers rise to power. the US's warnings that europe was being to hard of germany went unheaded, and sent them headlong into WWII. and then the US was expected to jump right in again, this would have been a never ending circle of destruction if left to europe.

philipjd
08 Oct 04,, 01:33
no need to start mudslinging.

Not my intention to mudsling, but I do find that the ponds surrounding the US has a 'blinkers' effect to it's views on the rest of the world. Apologies if it comes across that way - just my own opinion, I say as much to me american relatives (3rd generation now, live in NY and FL).




you cant tell me it would be just as easy during WWII to get europe to fight an invasion force going into mexico, as it would for american politicians to get americans to do the same. the ramifications are completly different for both.

Centres of power - quite different, an invasion of Mexico by anyone (except maybe the US, and that was not likely to happen circa WW2, is not going to have anything more than a local effect. Within Europe, what could be called a local war, would have a global impact if the major countries were involved. The world of the 30's is not the US/USSR dominated era post WW2.





i found it to be quite accurate, they were warring family members, that brought along with them all the people they had treaties with. what rightouse cause was wold war I fought over? the US had a rightous roll in helping to end it, but the wars begining was meaningless and gained no purpouse other than to set the stage for world war II, which was just a continuation of the first war, germanys utter humiliation by the allies in WWI (above and beyond and against the wishes of the US) was the direct cause of hitlers rise to power. the US's warnings that europe was being to hard of germany went unheaded, and sent them headlong into WWII. and then the US was expected to jump right in again, this would have been a never ending circle of destruction if left to europe.

I agree that no righteous cause in the biblical way was the "cause" behind WW1, that is because we are all human and suffer from human vanities, arogance etc. The whole point of (or the major one rather) of elected government is to take the power out of the hands of individuals and give it to 'the people' as a whole, thus reducing the potential negative impact of any individual.

Set the stage for WW2 - the Germans people believed they were winning the war, right up until the end - because they were told nothing else. Hence the feeling of betrayal and the need to blame some one for that illusion, initially it was the imperial government then Hitler manipulated that sense of betrayal into a tool he could wield.

Peace too tough, maybe not tough enough, try talking with the French/Belgians on how tough the peace was (French more than the Belgians). Although a Europe without Germany with revolutionary Russia on it's border is not something I would like to contemplate. The unfortunate thing about revolutionary change is that without a strong leader (a la Napoleon) it takes a society a long time to regain it's feet, thus making it vulnerable to extreme's, and Europe had a four fold revolutionary change, Russia (obvious), dismantalling of Austro Hungry, disolution of the Ottoman empire and the move, for the first time, from a form of absolute government to an elected one in Germany. The Balkans had not recovered (or maybe never found in the first place) a sense of coexistence with the other balkan nationalities that made up the former Ottoman Empire territories in the region. "Interesting Times".

Whoever is unjust let him find justice
Whoever is righteous let him show humility
Whoever is filthy let him be cleansed
Understand the words long written down
When the man comes around- Jhonny Cash [adulterated, prefer positives, apologies again]

cheers
Phil

Donnie
08 Oct 04,, 02:08
Not my intention to mudsling, but I do find that the ponds surrounding the US has a 'blinkers' effect to it's views on the rest of the world. Apologies if it comes across that way - just my own opinion, I say as much to me american relatives (3rd generation now, live in NY and FL).

being your conversation was with me and not other americans i took it personal.


Centres of power - quite different, an invasion of Mexico by anyone (except maybe the US, and that was not likely to happen circa WW2, is not going to have anything more than a local effect.

not if it was the end of a domino effect, you better believe the US would be concerned, with the US in its isolationist state they were there own center of power, the people of the US (as a whole) couldnt have cared less what was happening in europe, because europe was no longer considered thier center of power. so eropes center of power is begining to teeter, who is percieved (real or otherwise) to be more effected? europe of course, that mean a much harder struggle to get americans into the war than any country in europe.


Within Europe, what could be called a local war, would have a global impact if the major countries were involved.

not so much for the US, they were in an isolationist state (good or ill) they did not percieve europe as thier power center. to the US as a whole it was a localized event till pearl.

sorry ran out of time for the rest will continue later



Whoever is unjust let him find justice
Whoever is righteous let him show humility
Whoever is filthy let him be cleansed
Understand the words long written down
When the man comes around- Jhonny Cash [adulterated, prefer positives, apologies again].

no need to apologize, unfortunatly, the words cannot be changed, not one iota. :)
anyone get that?

Kipruss
08 Oct 04,, 05:24
I must admit that when I started the thread I thought it might encourage the British on the World Affairs Board to come out and say that the damage to their country in WW2 did stop them from joining the super powers:). Perhaps they realised that their population would not be large enough to compete with the US and the Soviet Union and the time of the British Empire was doomed to failure.

Also, as I believe the majority of the deaths in the holocaust came towards the end of the war, I thought that it might bring more comment. I used to support Israel because of my "collective" guilt of not being able to stop the awful, revolting, inexcusable tragedy. I wonder if that guilt has anything to do with the billions of dollars in military aid the US gives Israel each year and the constant stream of vetos it uses in the security council? Or perhaps it is as simple as encouraging at least one state in the middle east to be a democracy (Turkey not withstanding).

philipjd
08 Oct 04,, 19:02
I must admit that when I started the thread I thought it might encourage the British on the World Affairs Board to come out and say that the damage to their country in WW2 did stop them from joining the super powers:). Perhaps they realised that their population would not be large enough to compete with the US and the Soviet Union and the time of the British Empire was doomed to failure.

It was WW that sounded the death knell for the Empire, a few of the main reasons;

First it shifted the principle financial centre of the world from London to New York, with major permanent effects (especially during WW2 a la Neutrality Act passed in 1938 IIRC)

Second it had a serious impact on the National Outlook - due to the number of casualties (dead and disabled), submarine campaign negated the traditional Royal Navy (perceived)

Thirdly - industrial, TOTAL WAR destroys economies that are not geared towards it at a fundamental level (wear and tear on capital equipment, equipment that was useless after hostilities, plus our medium/heavy industril base was insufficient to cope with the wars demands so you have to import at much greter expense)

Lastly, the UK during the war was a net lender so its allies (not borrower as conventional wisdom puts it) but a major part of that lending was to the Russians - the Bolsheviks repudiated that debt which left a significant whole in the Nations finances.


Also, as I believe the majority of the deaths in the holocaust came towards the end of the war, I thought that it might bring more comment. I used to support Israel because of my "collective" guilt of not being able to stop the awful, revolting, inexcusable tragedy. I wonder if that guilt has anything to do with the billions of dollars in military aid the US gives Israel each year and the constant stream of vetos it uses in the security council? Or perhaps it is as simple as encouraging at least one state in the middle east to be a democracy (Turkey not withstanding).

There was a recent TV program (historical reconstruction of a meeting held in 1942 IIRC that played out the formal authorisation of the Final Solution and in that one of the main resons for accelerting the 'process' was the entry of the US into the war. Not sure how accurate that was though.

cheers
Phil

xxxxx
09 Oct 04,, 08:33
How could the French and Brits supported the Germans? Did they have any sufficient expedionary forces available at that time?

If not, that might explain the reasons for Chamberlain's "appeasements". Everybody keeps calling Chamberlain a coward but nobody remembers that he was singly responsible for restarting the British military which was in serious decline. He was the one that made several huge orders to build more warships and planes and started the path to military innovation. Without those things, even Churchill would have a very very tough time standing up to the German war machine.

The credit for the buildup of the British war machine goes to Chamberlain, not Churchill.

Remember before the war broke out, the world was in midst of a great depression, and England was not immune to it. To deal with the depression, British was forced to make several cuts in the military budget and have an empire army and navy on the cheap. Chamberlain was the one who changed the direction of that military thinking.

at the start of the war, the great depression was ages ago.

I read that at the beginning of WW2 the birtish army included only about 10,000 men!!! (Encarta premium suite) no miracle that they didn't feel like invading the well-equiped, well-trained and fairly big Wehrmacht.

while the Royal Navy was among the best navies of the world for centuries, the british army "traditionally" has been weak and small.
When Bismarck was asked during the Danish war, what he would do if the british would invade the German north sea coast in order to support the Danish, he ansewered:
"Nothing. the police will arrest them :rolleyes: "
that was probably the only time Bismarck showed some sense of humour.