NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, a debate occasionally comes up in these here forums over whether the United States of America saved Europe during World War Two.

My first ever thread was on a similar question.

Ah, memories.

EDIT: And now I seem to unintentionally be responsible for a second one.

Now, a debate occasionally comes up in these here forums over whether the United States of America saved Europe during World War Two. The usual argument against this is no, the USSR was quite capable of mopping the Continent with Germany without our help, although it probably would have been longer and more bloody.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the above is correct, and disregarding for the sake of the same argument the added devestation the European countries being fought over likely would have sustained, I present this argument.

If the USSR had for all intents and purposes singlehandedly defeated Germany in Europe, it would seem most unlikely that they would simply let the European countries go on their merry independent way afterwards. So although we may not have saved them from Nazi Germany, I submit that we did in fact save them (or at least half of the Continent) from several decades, at the least, of Soviet occupation.

Please, feel free to tell me why this theory is stupid. :D

And now you've stolen my thread on it. Nice.

Sorry about that. :p

Idiocy and pure lunacy. Hitler wouldn't have defeated Great Britain, and if, for the sake of argument, that the Soviet Union did defeat Nazi Germany, Britain would have never allowed the USSR to occupy the European nations of western Europe. The United States would have inevitable become involved and this may have sparked WW III within a few years of the last world war. In any case, the Soviet Union would have never made it out of Germany to western Europe, their resources would have been even more severely over-stretched than they already were.

Are you British, by any chance?

My first ever thread was on a similar question.

Ah, memories.

And now you've stolen my thread on it. Nice.

Please, feel free to tell me why this theory is stupid. :D
It's probably partly correct, in that the Soviets would probably have taken the opportunity to overexpand, but I also think it'd be the case (a) that the Soviet Union would have collapsed much more quickly, and (b) the cold war would probably not have happened to the extent that it did, since American isolationism would probably have stood firmly and the level of interaction between the two "superpowers" would be much more isolated.

Idiocy and pure lunacy. Hitler wouldn't have defeated Great Britain, and if, for the sake of argument, that the Soviet Union did defeat Nazi Germany, Britain would have never allowed the USSR to occupy the European nations of western Europe. The United States would have inevitable become involved and this may have sparked WW III within a few years of the last world war. In any case, the Soviet Union would have never made it out of Germany to western Europe, their resources would have been even more severely over-stretched than they already were.

The thing that bothers me is that many a Yank will claim that the US saved Britain in WWII (sometimes even in WWI!).

Operation Sealion was the German plan for invasion of Britain...

It was aborted before the USA joined the war.

End of frickin' argument, eh?

On whether the US saved Europe... eh, well, it helped to save one vision in part of Europe from another vision (that sucked a bit more).

The USSR would have struggled without US... Canadian, and British aid, but that doesn't mean that the US, even by its aid, is the saviour. Had it been down to the US alone, we would be about 950 years away from the end of the Thousand Year Reich.

There were other people in the war than just you you know, the idea most find stupid is the belief that America rode in on a white charger and scoured every Nazi off the face of the planet purely out of good intentions rather than seeing an oppurtunity to advance their own interests.

There were other people in the war than just you you know, the idea most find stupid is the belief that America rode in on a white charger and scoured every Nazi off the face of the planet purely out of good intentions rather than seeing an oppurtunity to afvance their own interests.

I can't see where I expressed a belief that the United States of America was (were? What's the correct word when the name of a country is a plural?) the only country in the war. If you're going to say something along those lines, something more accurate giving my opening post would perhaps be- there were other nations capable of defeating Germany than the Soviet Union and the United States of America, or, there were other nations capable of preventing the Soviet Union from dominating Western Europe than the United State of America.

The thing that bothers me is that many a Yank will claim that the US saved Britain in WWII (sometimes even in WWI!).

Operation Sealion was the German plan for invasion of Britain...

It was aborted before the USA joined the war.
Rather, the Battle of the Atlantic is where the US saved Britain. The UK saved itself from Sea Lion and the German attempt to implement Douhet.

The USSR would have struggled without US... Canadian, and British aid, but that doesn't mean that the US, even by its aid, is the saviour. Had it been down to the US alone, we would be about 950 years away from the end of the Thousand Year Reich.

Most unlikely, as Intercontinental B-36 bombers equipped with atomic weapons would have been ready by 1946. The US would have removed Hitler from power, but much of Europe would have suffered from the effects of atomic bombardment, thus making a suboptimal outcome.

Rather, the current situation is essentially the best one we could have hoped for to happen, after the summer of 1941, with the three major allied powers aligning as they did, and contributing as they did.

Now, a debate occasionally comes up in these here forums over whether the United States of America saved Europe during World War Two. The usual argument against this is no, the USSR was quite capable of mopping the Continent with Germany without our help, although it probably would have been longer and more bloody.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the above is correct, and disregarding for the sake of the same argument the added devestation the European countries being fought over likely would have sustained, I present this argument.

If the USSR had for all intents and purposes singlehandedly defeated Germany in Europe, it would seem most unlikely that they would simply let the European countries go on their merry independent way afterwards. So although we may not have saved them from Nazi Germany, I submit that we did in fact save them (or at least half of the Continent) from several decades, at the least, of Soviet occupation.

Please, feel free to tell me why this theory is stupid. :D

It's actually pretty much exactly what I think. Say FDR gets killed by... a leprechaun death assassin. Yeah. Regardless of what happens depression-wise, the new president is an isolationist. So the Germans invade Poland, France, Balkans and everything right on time, in addition to not invading Britain right on time. They then break dictator rule one, invade Russia, and are pushed back in a bloodbath of absolutely horrific proportions, while Britain and domains fend off Japan as best they can and nip German heals were they can. As Germans are siphoned to the losing battle in the east, in invasion of Italy may well be mounted, and perhaps even west Europe, but most of it, all Germany, certainly, will be taken by the triumphant Soviets.

So yeah, the USA saved Europe, but only from the commies.

i think the war had reached an effective economic and military stalemate. if the US hadn't entered the war it would have been longer and bloodier imo, but i'm no expert

Most unlikely, as Intercontinental B-36 bombers equipped with atomic weapons would have been ready by 1946. The US would have removed Hitler from power, but much of Europe would have suffered from the effects of atomic bombardment, thus making a suboptimal outcome.


By chance, have you read The Big One?

I can't see where I expressed a belief that the United States of America was (were? What's the correct word when the name of a country is a plural?) the only country in the war. If you're going to say something along those lines, something more accurate giving my opening post would perhaps be- there were other nations capable of defeating Germany than the Soviet Union and the United States of America, or, there were other nations capable of preventing the Soviet Union from dominating Western Europe than the United State of America.

I can't see where I said YOU said that and I was talking about what is perterbing about discussions in this area. You can't ignore what someone says in a discussion for not adhering exactly to the OP or chastise them.

there were other nations capable of preventing the Soviet Union from dominating Western Europe than the United State of America.
Yes there were other nations capable of stopping Soviet domination in Western Europe. In fact FDR's submittal to Stalin because hethought he could trust the old murderous dictator and manipulate him was responsable for alot of Soviet dominance in politics with FDR agreeing with Stalin over Churchill because he wanted to stop Britain getting back the colonies taken from it essentially treating us like shit and bending over for the USSR only to turn round ealise they'd been screwed and go into a tirade about sodomising communism for the next 50 or so years.

Probably, if not through lend-lease, the battle of the Atlantic, then from the USSR.

My first ever thread was on a similar question.

Ah, memories.

EDIT: And now I seem to unintentionally be responsible for a second one.

so are you saying this is all your fault? :D

Well, here is an interesting thought. When the U.S. landed in Normandy, and Stalin was informed, he was to say, " We neeed that three years ago, not now." The USSR was on its way to winning. However, the U.S. along with the UK, Poland Canada, and the Free French did liberate France and stuff. Perhaps the U.S. strongest contribution came in terms of manpower and lend-lease. We actually payed Britain's war for them, they were bankrupt. We also took on the Japanese basically by oursleves. Everyone did something to win. Also, The Brits didn't save themselves form Dunkrirk, Guderian could have taken it, but was ordered to stop. Goring convinced Hitler the Luftwaffe could take care of it.

The US didn't really save Europe from anything. At least single-handedly.

They replenished the supply of troops for the exhausted allies who had a great number of nations on its side, including a number of nations that had once been allies of Nazi Germany.

The US couldn't have saved Britain because the US entered after the Battle for Britain and focused most of its force on the Japanese imperial forces in the Pacific theatre.

Now, if the US hadn't entered, the war would have been longer but German arrogance would have ensured victory for the allies because the Germans had split their forces and with the Soviets hitting the Eastern Front hard, this would leave the Western Front undermanned, eventually allowing for the allies,without the US to make headway into land.

The other thing to remember is that during the war, Hitler was extremely cocky and ignored his generals when they called for Wartime mobilisation, which would have meant rationing, which the Germans didn't do until it was too late to make a real difference. The allied forces were rationing which gave them more resources for the front.

stuff

I rather doubt that whole nobody-helps-USSR,-USA-wins-anyway idea. If Germany won in Europe, the US would have been idiotic to attack it, alone. Rockets on New York, bombs on Washington, elite troops in Alaska...

No, it would have been a totally different circumstance, and the Yanks would quite likely not have dropped the bomb on this Europe, even if they got it in time.

But I must now away to bed, for I am to be up in less than five hours. Wait, less than four. Shite.

The thing that bothers me is that many a Yank will claim that the US saved Britain in WWII (sometimes even in WWI!).

Operation Sealion was the German plan for invasion of Britain...

It was aborted before the USA joined the war.
.
It was called off due to the failure of the Battle of Britain, and the Generals strongly disliked the idea, knowing full well the Luftwaffe and Kreigsmarine could not protect them against the Royal Navy.

By chance, have you read The Big One?

Actually, I haven't, although I might given that it seems to be reasonably enticing.

That was the purpose of the B-36 bomber though. It was a weapon designed to carry atomic weapons from North America all the way to Central Europe, at extremely high altitudes.

Well, here is an interesting thought. When the U.S. landed in Normandy, and Stalin was informed, he was to say, " We neeed that three years ago, not now." The USSR was on its way to winning. However, the U.S. along with the UK, Poland Canada, and the Free French did liberate France and stuff. Perhaps the U.S. strongest contribution came in terms of manpower and lend-lease. We actually payed Britain's war for them, they were bankrupt. We also took on the Japanese basically by oursleves. Everyone did something to win. Also, The Brits didn't save themselves form Dunkrirk, Guderian could have taken it, but was ordered to stop. Goring convinced Hitler the Luftwaffe could take care of it.

Yeah, we were massively in debt, and lend-lease was vital, but for purely defensive purposes we were self-sufficient. Dunkirk isn't what we're talking about because it's before the Point of Divergance. But I don't think you're right about Japan. As many Chinese died fighting the Japanese as Russians fighting the Germans, if I'm not mistaken, and they took plenty with them. And the Chinese were being being equipped from British India, via Burma, which was defended by a British-Ghurka-Australian force.

But mostly it was the Chinese. That's one of the great tragedies of the war: the Nationalists who fought it were defeated in the Civil War, so there is very little to commemmorate the massive sacrifice that China made.

If the US never entered the war, then Germany's Wolfpack strategy in the Atlantic would've starved Britain of the supplies necessary for carrying on. As a result, the British would've had to try for a peaceful end to the war with Germany. With the USSR campaign taking resources, Germany might've accepted this. Either way, Britian would never be able to invade Normandy on its own and Europe would not have been liberated. I highly recommend that people read up on the Liberty ships. The British never would've been able to stay in the war without the US.

The US actually did save Britain in WWI. We didn't have the impact on the ground, but if you study the Naval War (especially around 1917) you will see the US did save the day. If the US didn't provide the destroyers and ships for the convoys, then the German U-boats would've forced a British surrender in early 1918.

That is afterall why the Germans surrendered. They themselves were being starved by the British blockade of the North Sea. The Germans really didn't lose a lot on the ground. They realized that they would run out of supplies first and that the US-UK convoys had destroyed hope that they would be able to starve Britain.

I recommend that people read Robert K. Massie's Castle's of Steel if you want to study this topic.

If by saved you mean prevented the Russians from capturing over half of it.. Yes.

Yeah, we were massively in debt, and lend-lease was vital, but for purely defensive purposes we were self-sufficient. Dunkirk isn't what we're talking about because it's before the Point of Divergance. But I don't think you're right about Japan. As many Chinese died fighting the Japanese as Russians fighting the Germans, if I'm not mistaken, and they took plenty with them. And the Chinese were being being equipped from British India, via Burma, which was defended by a British-Ghurka-Australian force.

But mostly it was the Chinese. That's one of the great tragedies of the war: the Nationalists who fought it were defeated in the Civil War, so there is very little to commemmorate the massive sacrifice that China made.

This true. However, we did handle the Japanese Navy which is more what I meant. Nat China held down their ground troops. Which in turn left them less men to garrison the islands and defend the homeland if we had needed to invade it.

I rather doubt that whole nobody-helps-USSR,-USA-wins-anyway idea. If Germany won in Europe, the US would have been idiotic to attack it, alone. Rockets on New York, bombs on Washington, elite troops in Alaska...
Doubtful. The difficulties in crossing Siberia and the Bering Strait would be exceedingly difficult. If the Germans had been unable to pull of Sea Lion right next door to Das Vaterland in th relative calm of the Channel, then it would be even more difficult to pull it off in Alaska.

No, it would have been a totally different circumstance, and the Yanks would quite likely not have dropped the bomb on this Europe, even if they got it in time.

By most measures, the US would have acquired the atomic bomb in line with the historical schedule, and German military technology would have kept pace with the existing historical schedule. If the UK had been knocked out earlier in the war, many of the German developments for interceptor fighters would have seemed comparatively unnecessary, and Germany would have been incredibly vulnerable to the B-36.

But I must now away to bed, for I am to be up in less than five hours. Wait, less than four. Shite.

That's why not having internet in your apartment is an amazing thing...it permits you to be able to skip the NSG and go to bed :D

However much the US helped the UK in the war they certainly turned round and stabbed us in the back afterwards, at least before the Marshal plan.

The UK sent a Man (not a team, just one man) across to the US to ask/negotiate/beg for a grant from the US to kick-start the UK economy and pay for things like the NHS and pension scheme. The Americans turned round and refused, claiming the money would go to funding the "evil, imperialist British Empire" said one congressman. They made us go with a loan of 2% interest with strings attached. The main one being that the Pound sterling HAD to be freely converted into other currencies, before you knew it almost all the dollars from the lone were gone and the value of the pound dropped. This is of course what the Americans wanted as they were determined to end the hundred - hundred and fifty year trading dominance of the British Empire.

Then they did another U-turn and started handing out marshal aid, which did help tremendously, but they still refused to cancel the massive debts to the UK, which we have only just paid back. If you ask me I think we should be asking for the money from Germany that they never paid after WW1.

If the US never entered the war, then Germany's Wolfpack strategy in the Atlantic would've starved Britain of the supplies necessary for carrying on. As a result, the British would've had to try for a peaceful end to the war with Germany. With the USSR campaign taking resources, Germany might've accepted this. Either way, Britian would never be able to invade Normandy on its own and Europe would not have been liberated. I highly recommend that people read up on the Liberty ships. The British never would've been able to stay in the war without the US.

The US actually did save Britain in WWI. We didn't have the impact on the ground, but if you study the Naval War (especially around 1917) you will see the US did save the day. If the US didn't provide the destroyers and ships for the convoys, then the German U-boats would've forced a British surrender in early 1918.

That is afterall why the Germans surrendered. They themselves were being starved by the British blockade of the North Sea. The Germans really didn't lose a lot on the ground. They realized that they would run out of supplies first and that the US-UK convoys had destroyed hope that they would be able to starve Britain.

I recommend that people read Robert K. Massie's Castle's of Steel if you want to study this topic.

The Americans made the same contribution in each World War, more meat in the grinder, more bullets for the guns.

As for British surrender in 1918 not likely as everyone knew how close the Germans were to defeat as they threw away their last counter offensives.

As for why Germany surrendered, yes starvation but also lack of manpower at home and on the front, lack of resources and a highly unstable political situation the legacy of which had massive ramifications for Germany for decades.

You might want to look up the "revolution from above" and "revolution from below".

Oh and in the Second World War Hitler had always been scared of drawing Britain into the fight and bombarded us with offers of peace, even at the height of the war he still believed we would see who the real enemy was and a great naval empire and great continental empire would unite to erradicate communism.

.

Then they did another U-turn and started handing out marshal aid, which did help tremendously, but they still refused to cancel the massive debts to the UK, which we have only just paid back. If you ask me I think we should be asking for the money from Germany that they never paid after WW1.

Yes, but it was because of those tough terms that the war WW2 started in the first place.

If the USSR had for all intents and purposes singlehandedly defeated Germany in Europe, it would seem most unlikely that they would simply let the European countries go on their merry independent way afterwards. So although we may not have saved them from Nazi Germany, I submit that we did in fact save them (or at least half of the Continent) from several decades, at the least, of Soviet occupation.

Please, feel free to tell me why this theory is stupid. :D

I do not think it is stupid at all.

This is what Im essaying at school right now Stressemans deft use of flirtacious tactics with Bolshevik Russia to make the West uneasy and showing eagerness to try and pay though they were not and appearing to cooperate so that the allies would reduce the reperations to be paid.

Among other things.

Yes, but it was because of those tough terms that the war WW2 started in the first place. There were many reasons for the War, that was just one of many. Besides if we just ask for the original amount and don’t account for inflation they shouldn’t have much of a problem paying it back.

Well, here is an interesting thought. When the U.S. landed in Normandy, and Stalin was informed, he was to say, " We neeed that three years ago, not now." The USSR was on its way to winning. However, the U.S. along with the UK, Poland Canada, and the Free French did liberate France and stuff. Perhaps the U.S. strongest contribution came in terms of manpower and lend-lease. We actually payed Britain's war for them, they were bankrupt. We also took on the Japanese basically by oursleves. Everyone did something to win. Also, The Brits didn't save themselves form Dunkrirk, Guderian could have taken it, but was ordered to stop. Goring convinced Hitler the Luftwaffe could take care of it.

Let us not forget Operation Torch :)

Let us not forget Operation Torch :)

I am reading an excellent book about that right now.

While the US was a major part of the reconquest of Europe during WW2, i think its more important that we realize that america saved Europe from WW3 from happening, with all the funneling of money via marshall plan and so forth.

It's actually pretty much exactly what I think. Say FDR gets killed by... a leprechaun death assassin. Yeah. Regardless of what happens depression-wise, the new president is an isolationist. So the Germans invade Poland, France, Balkans and everything right on time, in addition to not invading Britain right on time. They then break dictator rule one, invade Russia, and are pushed back in a bloodbath of absolutely horrific proportions, while Britain and domains fend off Japan as best they can and nip German heals were they can. As Germans are siphoned to the losing battle in the east, in invasion of Italy may well be mounted, and perhaps even west Europe, but most of it, all Germany, certainly, will be taken by the triumphant Soviets.

So yeah, the USA saved Europe, but only from the commies.

pfft..everyone knows leprechauns are terrible assassins...you can't sneak around with a pot of gold

Now, a debate occasionally comes up in these here forums over whether the United States of America saved Europe during World War Two. The usual argument against this is no, the USSR was quite capable of mopping the Continent with Germany without our help, although it probably would have been longer and more bloody.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the above is correct, and disregarding for the sake of the same argument the added devestation the European countries being fought over likely would have sustained, I present this argument.

If the USSR had for all intents and purposes singlehandedly defeated Germany in Europe, it would seem most unlikely that they would simply let the European countries go on their merry independent way afterwards. So although we may not have saved them from Nazi Germany, I submit that we did in fact save them (or at least half of the Continent) from several decades, at the least, of Soviet occupation.

Please, feel free to tell me why this theory is stupid. :D

I'm no authority on military history, but I find two general flaws in your theory:

1) The USSR would most likely have defeated Germany in the long run. However, the USSR suffered terrible losses during the war, and assuming that the bloodshed would have lasted considerably longer, it's also fair to assume that that would have further increased Russian casualties, quite possibly to the point where the Red Army would not have been in any position to take on the rest of Europe as well.

2) I personally find it rather bad manners to take credit for something that happened more or less unintentionally. It had not been the USA's intention to assist the allies in order to turn Germany into a bulwark against the Sovjet Union. To claim that as an achievement and a source of national pride seems a bit bigot to me.

While the US was a major part of the reconquest of Europe during WW2, i think its more important that we realize that america saved Europe from WW3 from happening, with all the funneling of money via marshall plan and so forth.

Some people claim it did happen... you know, what with the Cold War and all.
It was a war that the USA and the USSR fought indirectly, by providing funds, technology, training and weapons to vassal countries.

The US couldn't have saved Britain because the US entered after the Battle for Britain and focused most of its force on the Japanese imperial forces in the Pacific theatre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_first

Eh?

I've seen estimates that as little as 10% of U.S. industrial production was directed to the Pacific theater.

By feeding the Americans a picture of central and Eastern Europe that was at variance with reality, the Soviets were able to dictate the key terms of the Yalta accord and later agreements—even to the point of determining the future makeup of the Polish government. Ironically, Roosevelt measured this a success: he felt he got Stalin to “compromise.” Only Churchill raised a protest at proceedings. He was roundly ignored. Soviet leaders meanwhile were surprised and pleased with the ease at which they had achieved their goals. They had gotten everything they wanted.
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/11904.html

"Saved" Western Europe, "doomed" Eastern Europe.

Lets see,

D-day wouldn't have happened (at least not to what it was), Patton never would have swept over North Africa, the UK wouldn't have had American aid, much less the rest of the Allies, Germany would have had more soldiers to send to the Eastern front, and I'm not sure the British would have been capable of fighting more aggressively.

Although, the Russians simply weren't going to accept defeat for an answer.

I think the Allies would have been capable of defeating the Nazis without the US, but it would have taken a lot longer with a lot more casualties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_first

Eh?

I've seen estimates that as little as 10% of U.S. industrial production was directed to the Pacific theater.

10%? Sorry, I don't buy that for a second.

Insofar as US intelligence and logistical support allowed Stalin the means to devour the wermacht in Russia, yes.

However, I do note the subjectivity of the question. How can you pose a historical question with the term "save" employed with so little qualification so as to suggest an evident moral favouritism towards the victors?

Now, a debate occasionally comes up in these here forums over whether the United States of America saved Europe during World War Two. The usual argument against this is no, the USSR was quite capable of mopping the Continent with Germany without our help, although it probably would have been longer and more bloody.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the above is correct, and disregarding for the sake of the same argument the added devestation the European countries being fought over likely would have sustained, I present this argument.

If the USSR had for all intents and purposes singlehandedly defeated Germany in Europe, it would seem most unlikely that they would simply let the European countries go on their merry independent way afterwards. So although we may not have saved them from Nazi Germany, I submit that we did in fact save them (or at least half of the Continent) from several decades, at the least, of Soviet occupation.

Please, feel free to tell me why this theory is stupid. :D

I dont agree 100% with that.
The US and the UK saved the European continent from the USSR.
I have read UKers under play the US role, and Americans underplay the UK role.
The fact is no the US didnt single handedly do anything in WWII as far as Europe is concerned.

Would the war have ended differently without US industry? Of course.
Would the war have ended differently without the millions of bodies we put out there? Of course.
Can the same be said for the UK? Certainly.
The same can be said for many, WWII was without a doubt an "All In" war.

I give credit where credit is due.

WE ALL KICKED THIER ASS.

However much the US helped the UK in the war they certainly turned round and stabbed us in the back afterwards, at least before the Marshal plan.

The UK sent a Man (not a team, just one man) across to the US to ask/negotiate/beg for a grant from the US to kick-start the UK economy and pay for things like the NHS and pension scheme. The Americans turned round and refused, claiming the money would go to funding the "evil, imperialist British Empire" said one congressman. They made us go with a loan of 2% interest with strings attached. The main one being that the Pound sterling HAD to be freely converted into other currencies, before you knew it almost all the dollars from the lone were gone and the value of the pound dropped. This is of course what the Americans wanted as they were determined to end the hundred - hundred and fifty year trading dominance of the British Empire.

Then they did another U-turn and started handing out marshal aid, which did help tremendously, but they still refused to cancel the massive debts to the UK, which we have only just paid back. If you ask me I think we should be asking for the money from Germany that they never paid after WW1.

Do I hear a violin playing in the backround?

Which part of Europe are you from again? The part whose ass we saved or the part whose ass we kicked? :rolleyes:

Debatable. You assume all populations would submit to German rule.

I guess that's exactly what he meant by "had it been down to the US alone"...

The thing that bothers me is that many a Yank will claim that the US saved Britain in WWII (sometimes even in WWI!).

Operation Sealion was the German plan for invasion of Britain...

It was aborted before the USA joined the war.


You kind of left out the Battle of Britain. Germany didn't have enough surface ships to deal with the Royal Navy so they needed to take out the RAF to deal with the ships.

The US entry into the war was a minor factor.

If Germany could have taken down GB it would have as it would have eliminated a base for the US to deploy....


End of frickin' argument, eh?

On whether the US saved Europe... eh, well, it helped to save one vision in part of Europe from another vision (that sucked a bit more).

The USSR would have struggled without US... Canadian, and British aid, but that doesn't mean that the US, even by its aid, is the saviour. Had it been down to the US alone, we would be about 950 years away from the end of the Thousand Year Reich.

Debatable. You assume all populations would submit to German rule.

10%? Sorry, I don't buy that for a second.

That is a low-end estimate, to be certain.

But think about it for a moment...the U.S. was sending supplies to Britain and Russia, guarding those convoys during the Battle of the Atlantic, conducting campaigns in Africa and Italy, conducting a massive strategic bombing campaign, all while building up for the invasion of France.

After all that, just how much was left for the Pacific? 30%? 20%? Most of the battles in the Pacific were island campaigns requiring far less manpower, and far more naval/air support.

I'd guess no more than 25%...if that.

i would say that kicking hitler's butt was the last time that kicking anyone's butt saved anything. and the u.s. did play a major roll in doing so.

i think it's now engauged in destroying everything it ever might have saved before, but that of course is an entirely seperate question.

does anyone ever deserve all the credit for anything?
not very often if at all, but i think the u.s. did earn some real positive credit in that one.

=^^=
.../\...

Well, without US aid the Soviets would have likely had a far more difficult time than they did early in the war. We won it together, and at the same time prevented the USSR from gaining control over all of Europe. Everyone played a role in defeating the Axis during WWII.

However, I would say our help provided the critical pressure needed to keep the war in Europe from turning in to a stalemate between the USSR and Germany.

Well according to Hollywood the US single-handedly won WW2.

<OP SNIP>

Did America save Europe: No
Did America save the live of Europeans: Probably
Did America care about the countries it was saving: Not particularly, they were being just a smige selfish throughout the whole thing.

The Soviet Union may have played a big part in defeating the Nazis. But Europe's economic recovery after the War was almost entirely due to the unwavering support of the USA... (as much as it may hurt our pride to say that).

The Soviet Union may have played a big part in defeating the Nazis. But Europe's economic recovery after the War was almost entirely due to the unwavering support of the USA... (as much as it may hurt our pride to say that).

For Britain part of the problem was all the money the US charged us for supplies and weapons - a debt that was only paid off recently.

Rather, the Battle of the Atlantic is where the US saved Britain. The UK saved itself from Sea Lion and the German attempt to implement Douhet.



Most unlikely, as Intercontinental B-36 bombers equipped with atomic weapons would have been ready by 1946. The US would have removed Hitler from power, but much of Europe would have suffered from the effects of atomic bombardment, thus making a suboptimal outcome.

Rather, the current situation is essentially the best one we could have hoped for to happen, after the summer of 1941, with the three major allied powers aligning as they did, and contributing as they did.The Nazis had jet fighters ready by 1944. These jet fighters were equiped with autocannons that could destroy a B-17 in 4 hits. And as they were jets fighters they'd be able to out manouever any escort... which the B-36 wouldn't have anyway. In addition to this, when the Nazis would complete their own nuclear weapons research, then the USA would have been annilated through use of ICBMs as a delivery system (the A9/A10 combo).

For Britain part of the problem was all the money the US charged us for supplies and weapons - a debt that was only paid off recently.Yes... the UK only recently paid of that debt because we were paying it back so slowly. I can't remember the precise figure of the last repayment, but I'm pretty sure it was less than 0.05% of the entire UK budget.

I find these 'we saved your ass' threads to be hugely insulting to all the Allied forces who sacrificed their lives preventing fascism infecting Europe and the East (Asia).

I find these 'we saved your ass' threads to be hugely insulting to all the Allied forces who sacrificed their lives preventing fascism infecting Europe and the East (Asia).
Well, at least I can say with a modicum of confidence that my country didn't save Europe's arse! :D

Well, at least I can say with a modicum of confidence that my country didn't save Europe's arse! :DMaybe it, by rising up with imperialist overtones, everyone was completely shocked the ways of facsists that nobody wanted to be one anymore, and saved Europe from facsism in the long run. Maybe.

Yes... the UK only recently paid of that debt because we were paying it back so slowly. I can't remember the precise figure of the last repayment, but I'm pretty sure it was less than 0.05% of the entire UK budget.

$4.34 billion with a 2% interest rate. A lot of money for tins of spam. Some years we could not afford to make any repayments at all, and it severely hampered Britains economic recovery.

Well, at least I can say with a modicum of confidence that my country didn't save Europe's arse! :D

Well there were Germans who fought the Nazi's...sadly very very little is known about them.

I consider them to be part of the Allied forces if not in fact then definitely in spirit.

If Britain had gone tits up, (and we could have if Dunkirk had failed or the Germans had trapped the BEF in France) then there would have been far more troops for Operation Barbarossa- the invasion of the USSR. They very nearly succeeded in this anyway-it was only Hitlers meddling that caused failure. With Britain and Russia gone the USA would be fighting the Japanese fleet, the German fleet, the Italian fleet and possibly the Vichy French fleet!
German bombers could fly from Greenland or Iceland ( Iceland was generally sympathetic to germany) Then the situation for America fighting on its own looks a lot bleaker! They would probably gone for an accomodation with the axis powers after pressure from isolationists. The truth is that all the allies were necessary to win the war. We all saved each other!

The USSR din'nt single handedly beat the Nazis. They just fought the war on the basis of "Plenty more troops where they came from!" Remember they started the war by invading half of poland as Germanys allies!

I consider them to be part of the Allied forces if not in fact then definitely in spirit.
I suppose. Though what exactly might have come from it is an open question (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=518506).

Britain was the ONLY allied country to repay its war debt to the USA.

$4.34 billion with a 2% interest rate. A lot of money for tins of spam. Some years we could not afford to make any repayments at all, and it severely hampered Britains economic recovery.I think we learnt from that mistake well then. By allowing our banks to loan about huge amounts of money to developing countries and then uping the interest rates in the late 1970s

...

It's a symptom of my mind that I go looking for a little detail about US economic history and I end up reading about Golda Meir. *sighs*

In about ten minutes time I'll probably be reading about Jaws.

The single most decisive thing the US did in Europe was mass produce, load up, and then provide increasingly excellent protection for the convoys that traversed the Atlantic to supply Britain and later, Russia. Due to German preying on these merchant ships (U-boats prowled the eastern seaboard of North America, the gulf of St Lawrence, and ultimately the whole world) I don't think the US would have remained neutral for long, but if the US government had extracted itself and said "you do business, you take the risk" then yah, Britain would have been forced to surrender and Germany could have reinforced its eastern front with the troops and materials it spent in the west.

Assuming Hitler had not continued to ineffectually micromanage and assuming Britain had surrendered early enough then the USSR would have fallen. If they had only surrendered in late '43 then the outcome isn't nearly as clear and I couldn't really make much of a guess. It would have been who made the first mistake. If it was during '44 then the USSR would have likely been unstoppable regardless of what more the Germans threw at them.

Rather, the Battle of the Atlantic is where the US saved Britain. The UK saved itself from Sea Lion and the German attempt to implement Douhet.



Most unlikely, as Intercontinental B-36 bombers equipped with atomic weapons would have been ready by 1946. The US would have removed Hitler from power, but much of Europe would have suffered from the effects of atomic bombardment, thus making a suboptimal outcome.

Rather, the current situation is essentially the best one we could have hoped for to happen, after the summer of 1941, with the three major allied powers aligning as they did, and contributing as they did.

I think Britain and the USSR would have made it on their own, it would have been hard but Europe would be mostly communist indeed, but again Britain was doing fine.

I agree that the USA alone wouldnt have been able to do it. And the argument about the A-bomb is pretty stupid. Because if Nazi Germany would have beaten the UK, there would be enough industrial power in Germany to make enough aircraft to stop that B-36. Also Germany was not far away from its own A-bomb. In fact it was so far in the program that the Germans tried to flee to Japan to do about 1 more week/month of building the bomb.

USSR, saving europe? funny stuff. First of they ally with Hitler and pwn Poland togheter. Then they go to war against eachother and suddenly USSR is the savior of Europe. I tell you 1 thing, they were worst then the nazis.

Without the USA, half of Europe would fall, the other half was the ally of Germany. The money, resources, manpower of the US army was needed. The UK couldnt hold a winter against the germans without the USA.

So yeah US saved one part of Europe and let the other part of Europe to be raped by the USSR. So yeah US saved Europe perhaps 50% :P

Operation Sealion was the German plan for invasion of Britain...

It was aborted before the USA joined the war.

End of frickin' argument, eh?

Thus demonstrates the lack of feasibility of the operation. If it had been scrapped after the US involvement, it would be saying "well, we don't need this anymore," but since it scrapped before US involvement, that is saying "Shit. We can't really do this...let's get another plan together." Where's the end of the argument again? :)

On whether the US saved Europe... eh, well, it helped to save one vision in part of Europe from another vision (that sucked a bit more).

The USSR would have struggled without US... Canadian, and British aid, but that doesn't mean that the US, even by its aid, is the saviour. Had it been down to the US alone, we would be about 950 years away from the end of the Thousand Year Reich.

Yeah, okay. The fact is: The US entered World War II and its involvement certainly hastened the end of the war. I'd like to see WW II fought without the US economic production capacity, considering the near complete destruction of European production capacity.

The USSR din'nt single handedly beat the Nazis. They just fought the war on the basis of "Plenty more troops where they came from!" Remember they started the war by invading half of poland as Germanys allies!

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but by the time the USSR invaded Poland the UK, Canada and France had already declared war on Germany, no?

holy shit

holy shit

?

I think Britain and the USSR would have made it on their own, it would have been hard but Europe would be mostly communist indeed, but again Britain was doing fine.

I agree that the USA alone wouldnt have been able to do it. And the argument about the A-bomb is pretty stupid. Because if Nazi Germany would have beaten the UK, there would be enough industrial power in Germany to make enough aircraft to stop that B-36. Also Germany was not far away from its own A-bomb. In fact it was so far in the program that the Germans tried to flee to Japan to do about 1 more week/month of building the bomb.

Are you kidding? Project Alsos had determined that by the end of the war, the Nazis were had reached an equivalent point of the Manhattan/Tube Alloys folks in 1942. They were nowhere near developing their own atomic bomb. More like three years, let alone three months.

U-234 was carrying a sizable quantity of unenriched Uranium Oxide, but very little, if any, Highly Enriched Uranium.

Further, the German fighter-interceptor programs were driven by desperation to drive away US-UK bombers based out of England. Without those bombers, the German fighter-interceptor program would not have advanced nearly as far as it did, and, most likely, would not have developed fighters with sufficient altitude capabilities to intercept the B-36.

Yeah, okay. The fact is: The US entered World War II and its involvement certainly hastened the end of the war. I'd like to see WW II fought without the US economic production capacity, considering the near complete destruction of European production capacity.

If you listen to the analysis of Marshal Zhukov, one of history's great logistics generals, without US aid and support, the USSR would have folded in the Winter of 1942, starved of raw materials for it's war machine.

The Nazis had jet fighters ready by 1944. These jet fighters were equiped with autocannons that could destroy a B-17 in 4 hits. And as they were jets fighters they'd be able to out manouever any escort... which the B-36 wouldn't have anyway. In addition to this, when the Nazis would complete their own nuclear weapons research, then the USA would have been annilated through use of ICBMs as a delivery system (the A9/A10 combo).

Very unlikely.

The B-36 had a 14,630 meter service ceiling.

Me 262 topped out at 11,450 meters.
Me P.1101 topped out at 12,000 meters.
The Ho 229 was the only German fighter concept that could have reached the B-36 at height...and the only reason that got any attention was because Hitler became obsessed with "wonder weapons" that were radically different from anything that existed as a way to save Germany from inevitable defeat. Without this obsession, the Ho 229 doesn't even get built.

The A-9 and A-10 also suffer from this condition. Without looming defeat, Hitler doesn't become obsessed with wonder weapons, and they don't get built.

And German scientists were three years away from the bomb in 1945, they wouldn't have been able to build it before 1948, while the the US would have had the ability to deploy hundreds of atomic weapons by that point.

Did we save Europe? No.
Did we help save Europe? Hell yes.
Did our entry win the war? That can be debated.
Could the war have been won without us helping at all? (No lend-lease. No embargo against the Japanese. No helping the Soviets during Barbarossa, etc.) No.

Militarily, in Europe, we didn't accomplish much, that honor goes to the British, in the Pacific, we kicked ass, and no European can say that they won that war because they were clocked up in fighting for their lives 12,000 miles away.

Industrially and economically, however, is where Europe won the war through us. When American industry entered total war mode and began mass producing every weapon of war known to man, our distance from the enemy provided safe, continual manufacturing for the Allies. Our manpower could be easily utilized (seeing as we weren't fighting to defend our homeland/overseas empires). Our military was intact, which was essential in the transport of goods across the Atlantic. And to top it all off, we were sinking U-Boats en masse in the Atlantic, allowing more goods to reach their destinations in Britain.

Let's face it folks, the British won the war in Europe (hey, if they didn't defend themselves, where the hell were the American troops supposed to land and supply? Huh?) But without America's support, Britain eventually would have been forced to capitulate.

I don't know if I made any sense, but both of them worked hand in hand in their own way to win the war.

If you listen to the analysis of Marshal Zhukov, one of history's great logistics generals, without US aid and support, the USSR would have folded in the Winter of 1942, starved of raw materials for it's war machine.

Yeah, It's also a good thing that U-156 failed it's mission. (To destroy the American Fuel stock in Aruba that was to go to the Soviet Front)

It's funny there a ton of things that no one knows about WWII. Perhaps I should make a thread on little known WWII happenings.

No.

Tada!

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but by the time the USSR invaded Poland the UK, Canada and France had already declared war on Germany, no?
Yeah, the USSR was pretty late in invading Poland, IIRC they were a short while later than the Nazis.

See also the USSR being a couple of weeks later than the Western Allies in mounting their largest attacks into Germany. But then that's fair enough, seeing as we made them wait a whole 2 years and such.

The main reason Germany lost Europe during World War II, was because they were in fact fighting 3 other world powers on 2-3 fronts. If Hitler had only been fighting Britain and the Soviet Union with America still isolationist, he would have one. If his attention was focused on the Soviets, and then also planning a bit for Britain, he would stave off the Soviet counter-attacks, and slowly push back. With Britain, anything could have happened, but sooner or later, they would have probably been conquered too - if not, at least reduced to scrap metal by German bombers. As long as America didn't get involved, Nazi Germany was fine. Italy was doing good in North Africa, Japan could start its imperialistic march in the Pacific on non-US targets, etc. In my mind, Hitler would eventually realize why he couldn't conquer Russia - because of the winter. Thus, he would equip his soldiers on the Russian front with warm clothing, etc. More resources would be spent on tanks, clothing, and other equipment, instead of building the Atlantic Wall on the coast of Europe, that in the end, failed anyway.

The only reason the Soviets got through Germany in WWII was because Hitler couldn't devote his entire military to the Russian front. He had to split it into the fronts on France, Italy, Russia, etc.

Also, since America was not directly involved in the war, their atomic bomb program would not be pursued at such a great extent. In fact, it is quite possible (and very plausible) that Germany would develop it first, and then in a surprise move, attack the United States with the bombs (Washington D.C., New York City), London, and then a few Russian cities. Before the world knew it, Germany had already won. Britain would certainly fall, Russia would sooner or later be reduced to nothing but wasteland if they did not surrender, and America would probably be conquered eventually.

In other words, if not for Pearl Harbor, we would be speaking German right now. I guess we do owe Japan something, eh?

One word: Patton

Had it not been for this legendary general, the war would have lasted SEVERAL years longer, because Montgomery was too slow. In fact, if Eisenhower (another legend) had allowed patton to move as fast as he wanted to, millions of jews would have been saved (because most of the killing came in the final months) and there would have been no occupation in germany by the USSR. So, yea, US did knid of save Europe in WWII just like we did in WWI.

Errr ... no.

One word: Patton

Had it not been for this legendary general, the war would have lasted SEVERAL years longer, because Montgomery was too slow. In fact, if Eisenhower (another legend) had allowed patton to move as fast as he wanted to, millions of jews would have been saved (because most of the killing came in the final months) and there would have been no occupation in germany by the USSR. So, yea, US did knid of save Europe in WWII just like we did in WWI.

If Hitler had only been fighting Britain and the Soviet Union with America still isolationist, he would have won.

Fixed.

Italy was doing good in North Africa, Japan could start its imperialistic march in the Pacific on non-US targets, etc. In my mind, Hitler would eventually realize why he couldn't conquer Russia - because of the winter.

The Italian troops were a joke in WWII and it was Romel who kept the British Forces at bay for so long. Japan had already started its imperialistic march. It started it back in the early 30's in wars with China and Russia, and Hitler failed in Russia because he failed to learn from Histroy and attacked Russia in the winter. He didn't give up because of it. He may have succeeded in Russia had he waited till he attained victory on the Western Front then went after Russia in the Spring and Summer.

He had to split it into the fronts on France, Italy, Russia, etc.

You forgot North Africa.

Also, since America was not directly involved in the war, their atomic bomb program would not be pursued at such a great extent. In fact, it is quite possible (and very plausible) that Germany would develop it first

Actually if I'm not mistaken Japan was the next to aquire the power of the atom, they even tested an A-Bomb with success just before we nuked them the first time. The Japanese beat Hitler to it. One could argue, though, that was because he was already defeated by that time.

In other words, if not for Pearl Harbor, we would be speaking German right now. I guess we do owe Japan something, eh?

Hitler would have been foolish to attack the mainland of America. Even the "Imperialist Japs" knew that as quoted by the famous Admiral Yamamoto, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." who, by the way, was quite a fan of the United States and was against war with us from the beginning, and he paid the price for it too. Such a shame ...

Europe may be speaking German right now, but America wouldn't. Either way it is all specualtion as Europe could have, and very likely would have, won on it's own without American help ... it may have just taken longer and cost more.

One word: Patton

Had it not been for this legendary general, the war would have lasted SEVERAL years longer, because Montgomery was too slow. In fact, if Eisenhower (another legend) had allowed patton to move as fast as he wanted to, millions of jews would have been saved (because most of the killing came in the final months) and there would have been no occupation in germany by the USSR. So, yea, US did knid of save Europe in WWII just like we did in WWI.

We did not kinda saved Europe in WWI. Far from it.

As for WWII, actually read history. What you have aid here is accurate but you forgot to factor in one key word. Politics. Besides, by the time the Allies landed on the shores of Normandy, Germany was on the retreat in the East and would have fallen anyway.

Fixed.



The Italian troops were a joke in WWII and it was Romel who kept the British Forces at bay for so long. Japan had already started its imperialistic march. It started it back in the early 30's in wars with China and Russia, and Hitler failed in Russia because he failed to learn from Histroy and attacked Russia in the winter. He didn't give up because of it. He may have succeeded in Russia had he waited till he attained victory on the Western Front then went after Russia in the Spring and Summer.



You forgot North Africa.



Actually if I'm not mistaken Japan was the next to aquire the power of the atom, they even tested an A-Bomb with success just before we nuked them the first time. The Japanese beat Hitler to it. One could argue, though, that was because he was already defeated by that time.



Hitler would have been foolish to attack the mainland of America. Even the "Imperialist Japs" knew that as quoted by the famous Admiral Yamamoto, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." who, by the way, was quite a fan of the United States and was against war with us from the beginning, and he paid the price for it too. Such a shame ...

Europe may be speaking German right now, but America wouldn't. Either way it is all specualtion as Europe could have, and very likely would have, won on it's own without American help ... it may have just taken longer and cost more.

1. Yeah, they weren't as strong as they needed to be. They're like the axis equivalent of France, though France could have survived the Blitzkreig if they had learned from history and extended their wall from the English Channel to the Medeterarean Sea. You see, like the Second Reich of WWI, the Germans invaded France by invading Belgium first. The wall failed because the Germans went AROUND it. Too bad the Italians had no such preventable mistakes.

2. why do people keep forgetting North Africa. There were four main fronts: Pacific theatre, Western Europe, Eastern Front, and North Africa.

3. Japan gave up on the atomic bomb because they felt it was too expensive. They instead devoted their racist killing technology on biological warfare. They had plans to drop fleas infested with diseases, like the bubonic plague or possibly small pox, onto American cities. They even tested the stuff on POWs.

4. Yeah. Like the Soviets, the Americans would have likely fought to the death to defend the US.

5. Yeah. Hitler greatly contributed to the allied victory though. When the RAF was on the verge of complete destruction, he ordered the Luffwaffa to bomb London, giving the RAF enoughtime to completely recover. His invasion of the USSR created an unneeded front in one of the most unforgiving climates on earth. Hell, had he attacked France and Britian first instead of Poland, he would have had the element of surprise, which works very well when your battle plan depends on speed. Had he attacked each country one front at a time and built up his strength before starting another front, the war would have been longer and bloodier. The US wouldn't be in as much danger as Europe. The Atlantic Ocean is a pretty big ocean and Siberia isn't exactly forgiving. Plus, America's industrial might would be well within the center of the country. Britian needed American goods because their industries were within range of German bombers. American industry practiacally saved Europe, even if the Soviets and British provided most of the manpower.

No, we in the US did not save Europe. Europe was saved by a partnership between Great Britain, the USA, and Russia. It may also be true that the United States was not even needed in World War II. However the fact remains that in protection of our own interests (wich is the same damn reason everyone else was involved, you can't argue that) we joined the Allies and HELPED win World War II. Given time there is little doubt that The Soviet Union and Great Britain would have been able to defeat the more technologically advanced Nazi Germany or at least fought them to a stalemate but things would be far different now than they are today.

As for the USA being a world 'super power' as a US citisen I completly disagree. We may have people with money and technological gizmos coming out the anus but we have yet to solve any of our own problems. To me the USA may be a nation a step above most but we are far from super powerful. We are just an in your face, butting in to your business with some asasult rifles and nukes, holier than thou group of people who aren't afraid of doing what we want, when we want, where we want. The Persians, the Macedonians, the Romans, and the Mongols were all the same way. They (and we) are just less afraid to do as we will. If you look into US history the longest amount of peace time this young nation has ever had is shy of 30 years. The US is a nation for the people, by the people, founded on the concept of going out there and kicking someone's ass every few years just to prove we aint afraid of them. Not a superpower.

And as recent as the 1970's we are also a nation full of whiny quitters who run away at the face of adversity.

The main reason Germany lost Europe during World War II, was because they were in fact fighting 3 other world powers on 2-3 fronts. If Hitler had only been fighting Britain and the Soviet Union with America still isolationist, he would have one. If his attention was focused on the Soviets, and then also planning a bit for Britain, he would stave off the Soviet counter-attacks, and slowly push back. With Britain, anything could have happened, but sooner or later, they would have probably been conquered too - if not, at least reduced to scrap metal by German bombers.
Don't really see why you think this to be honest.

By the time that the US got involved, we'd already stopped Seelöwe and the USSR was kind of stablising the situation. The time
As long as America didn't get involved, Nazi Germany was fine.
Nazi Germany was fine until Kursk. Then it went tits-up completely for them.
Italy was doing good in North Africa
No it wasn't... the Italians were crap. The Germans were holding out alright, but after Stalingrad and Kursk, they couldn't really afford to keep troops in North Africa.
Japan could start its imperialistic march in the Pacific on non-US targets
To be stopped by the ANZACs or the Indians. Which is what happened.
In my mind, Hitler would eventually realize why he couldn't conquer Russia - because of the winter.
... You're talking about a man who thought he could control every single squad in Stalingrad personally and give relevant advice to the Feldwebels despite actually being in South Germany, which is utterly different.
Thus, he would equip his soldiers on the Russian front with warm clothing, etc.
Err... seeing as he failed to do this in 1942, which was the critical winter, and Russia was almost completely lost by the end of 1943, the elite forces that had trampled over France were taking severe casualties and they were being reinforced by truck drivers with no real battle experience, and yet were being asked of the same duties as before (see Guy Sajer's The Forgotten Soldier, which is a really good book) - something that no amount of woolly socks would sort out, and the Russians were getting their act together, he was basically shafted by the end of 1943, let alone by when Britain and the USA actually got involved in the important bits of Europe.
More resources would be spent on tanks, clothing, and other equipment, instead of building the Atlantic Wall on the coast of Europe, that in the end, failed anyway.
I don't really see why - by early 1944 the Germany were suffering immensely from a lack of rare metals like Tungsten, as well as decent steel, so they would have just made a whole load of fairly crappily built tanks, that would have conformed to Hitler's policy that was basically "make it as overpowered as possible" (AKA Jagdtiger Syndrome).
The only reason the Soviets got through Germany in WWII was because Hitler couldn't devote his entire military to the Russian front. He had to split it into the fronts on France, Italy, Russia, etc.
The Russian front was lost by late '43.

He was occupying the Low Countries, as well as Norway, France, the top bits of Italy and trying in vain to keep Eastern Europe on side by July 1944.
Also, since America was not directly involved in the war, their atomic bomb program would not be pursued at such a great extent. In fact, it is quite possible (and very plausible) that Germany would develop it first, and then in a surprise move, attack the United States with the bombs (Washington D.C., New York City), London, and then a few Russian cities. Before the world knew it, Germany had already won. Britain would certainly fall, Russia would sooner or later be reduced to nothing but wasteland if they did not surrender, and America would probably be conquered eventually.
Yeah, or maybe you don't actually have the faintest fucking idea about what you're talking about.

Not only did we blow up their heavy water factories in the early part of the war without American help (big up the Norwegian massive), since they didn't even really have enough enriched Uranium for a prototype by the end of the war, I don't think you've actually researched what you're on about.

Plus, why the hell would they attack the US first?

Since they'd have to either fly over the USSR for several thousand miles, or Britain and its various Empire-y parts depending on which way they wished to go, you would have thought that they'd use it on someone that they had any real danger from first (and that means the USSR for sure).

Plus the idea that they'd annihilate the USSR with atomic bombs is quite frankly ludicrous. They'd just cart the surviving factories off to somewhere else and keep fighting. Like they did earlier in the war. And not only that, but by the time that the Germans would have had an atomic bomb ('44 at the soonest, really) the Germans were also basically without the Luftwaffe, and the Russians had IIRC the second largest air force in the world.

Yeah. HUUUGE chance that any atomic bombers would get through... positively enormous...

At the highest points of the Cold War, the US didn't have enough nukes to obliterate the whole of the USSR. At all.
In other words, if not for Pearl Harbor, we would be speaking German right now.
No, you're just wrong. Completely.


*edits*

OK, I understand that this is a bit of a rant. Sorry in advance.

One word: Patton
One word : Fail
Had it not been for this legendary general, the war would have lasted SEVERAL years longer, because Montgomery was too slow.
Actually, I think was more like "Zhukov - For Great Justice!" who saved the day. By, you know, annihilating the same army group twice.
In fact, if Eisenhower (another legend) had allowed patton to move as fast as he wanted to, millions of jews would have been saved (because most of the killing came in the final months)
Actually, they'd just have been shot or gassed a bit sooner, methinks.
and there would have been no occupation in germany by the USSR.
Ah, yes. Bloody commies, eh?
So, yea, US did knid of save Europe in WWII just like we did in WWI.
Yes. To exactly the same extent, you're right. You can probably tell how much I think that is.

The atom bomb thing...

British commandos blew up Hitler's atom bomb project. Otherwise I'm pretty sure it would have been ready by the time the B-36 was in service. Yes the US might have had the first strike but Germany had other options than air-launch.

How about a nuke strapped to an equivalent of the Chariot released in the harbours in New York or wherever?

They may not have had the wonder-weapons to start with but they'd have had them afterwards believe you me, the Me163 Komet, given a good industrial base and more design work (rather than slave labour and rushed design) would have been a HELLACIOUS interceptor, station them on aircraft carrieres int eh atlantic, or in Spain and the UK and solo bombers like the Peacemaker was supposes to be wouldn't get far.

Several times I have heard that the Soviets and the Americans wouldn’t surrender and people seem to assume that Britain would have surrendered because of the dammed blitz. The fact is that The British government, the British people and the all-important Royal family would NEVER, EVER have surrendered. Dads army were willing to fight against crack SS troops with broom handles, farmers and other people in the countryside were issued with special ammo to fit in their shotguns and Churchill himself always had a colt .45 pistol with him. All the shots were for the enemy apart from the last, which was for himself.

I think what Hitler should have done to increase his chances of winning is try and get the neutral countries he was friendly with like Spain the Ireland to join the war on his side.

To be stopped by the ANZACs or the Indians. Which is what happened.

The ANZACs couldn't held out. A fight with India? Probably would not have happened.



... You're talking about a man who thought he could control every single squad in Stalingrad personally and give relevant advice to the Feldwebels despite actually being in South Germany, which is utterly different.

Err... seeing as he failed to do this in 1942, which was the critical winter, and Russia was almost completely lost by the end of 1943, the elite forces that had trampled over France were taking severe casualties and they were being reinforced by truck drivers with no real battle experience, and yet were being asked of the same duties as before (see Guy Sajer's The Forgotten Soldier, which is a really good book) - something that no amount of woolly socks would sort out, and the Russians were getting their act together, he was basically shafted by the end of 1943, let alone by when Britain and the USA actually got involved in the important bits of Europe.


Well? They were still doing pretty good as regiments were not always at full strength. Another interesting read is "Tragedy of the Faithful: 3rd SS Panzer Corps" by Wilhelm Tieke

I don't really see why - by early 1944 the Germany were suffering immensely from a lack of rare metals like Tungsten, as well as decent steel, so they would have just made a whole load of fairly crappily built tanks, that would have conformed to Hitler's policy that was basically "make it as overpowered as possible" (AKA Jagdtiger Syndrome).

If I remember right Speer said they had reached peek production by 1944. Tungsten was just starting to be felt.

What really hurt them was the damage to fuel production.


The Russian front was lost by late '43.

He was occupying the Low Countries, as well as Norway, France, the top bits of Italy and trying in vain to keep Eastern Europe on side by July 1944.

Yeah, or maybe you don't actually have the faintest fucking idea about what you're talking about.

Not only did we blow up their heavy water factories in the early part of the war without American help (big up the Norwegian massive), since they didn't even really have enough enriched Uranium for a prototype by the end of the war, I don't think you've actually researched what you're on about.


Not to forget all the subhuman jew scientists that were chased away.

Plus, why the hell would they attack the US first?

Since they'd have to either fly over the USSR for several thousand miles, or Britain and its various Empire-y parts depending on which way they wished to go, you would have thought that they'd use it on someone that they had any real danger from first (and that means the USSR for sure).

Plus the idea that they'd annihilate the USSR with atomic bombs is quite frankly ludicrous. They'd just cart the surviving factories off to somewhere else and keep fighting. Like they did earlier in the war. And not only that, but by the time that the Germans would have had an atomic bomb ('44 at the soonest, really) the Germans were also basically without the Luftwaffe, and the Russians had IIRC the second largest air force in the world.

Yeah. HUUUGE chance that any atomic bombers would get through... positively enormous...

At the highest points of the Cold War, the US didn't have enough nukes to obliterate the whole of the USSR. At all.

We would'nt need to. The western part and the eastern part was all that needed to be hit.

No, you're just wrong. Completely.


*edits*

OK, I understand that this is a bit of a rant. Sorry in advance.

They may not have had the wonder-weapons to start with but they'd have had them afterwards believe you me, the Me163 Komet, given a good industrial base and more design work (rather than slave labour and rushed design) would have been a HELLACIOUS interceptor, station them on aircraft carrieres int eh atlantic, or in Spain and the UK and solo bombers like the Peacemaker was supposes to be wouldn't get far.

Eh?

Isn't that what you would call the ME262?

Well there were Germans who fought the Nazi's...sadly very very little is known about them.

I consider them to be part of the Allied forces if not in fact then definitely in spirit.

ooh yes X troop 10 commando

The ANZACs couldn't held out. A fight with India? Probably would not have happened.
Errr... Indian troops were being used in the Pacific when we were attacked by the Japanese, as were the ANZACs, as well as the British troops stationed there.
Well? They were still doing pretty good as regiments were not always at full strength. Another interesting read is "Tragedy of the Faithful: 3rd SS Panzer Corps" by Wilhelm Tieke
Against the Russian forces which were getting very well led by late 1943, as well as being increasingly well trained and equipped (for example with the PPSh43, which was maybe the best SMG of the war), the increasingly worsening German forces which decreased in quality from about January 1942 onwards were proving more and more insufficient.

Oh and cheers for the book recommendation, I'll check it out when I have some money again.
If I remember right Speer said they had reached peek production by 1944. Tungsten was just starting to be felt.
Tungsten was starting to run out in 1942, and other than for the ground attack Ju87s, it was pretty difficult to obtain Tungsten rounds, and this came at a pretty poor time for the Germans, right when the IS-model tanks were starting to be brought out.

In terms of peak production, sadly for Speer, Russians were continually improving, and they had a much larger workforce that was compelled by ideas about saving their homeland, instead of being compelled by otherwise being gassed for not working hard enough (although labour discipline was pretty tight, it's true).
What really hurt them was the damage to fuel production.
That was also a factor in why the Germans lost, true. But then the US bombing could have been replaced by a ground assault by the USSR, and probably would have been had they not been involved.
Not to forget all the subhuman jew scientists that were chased away.
Err... I wouldn't call them subhuman, but yeah. Although most of them wandered off in the late '30s when they saw what was going on.
We would'nt need to. The western part and the eastern part was all that needed to be hit.
Err... that's kind of what the Nazis thought as well, to be honest. And then, much to their chagrin, they shuffled off behind the Urals and restarted production.

Eh?

Isn't that what you would call the ME262?

Ummm, no?

The 163 was a rocket-powered interceptor designed to get up to the level of the bomber stream, hit it with a hail of fire (they had some... interesting weapons systems for it) and glide down again.

Eh?

Isn't that what you would call the ME262?

Nooooo. The 163 was a rocket with a cockpit and cannons. Hellishly fast, but ridiculously unsafe.

The 262 was a phenomenal design project that could've made some serious impact had Hitler not demanded a fighter-bomber, pushing it back a bit.

Errr... Indian troops were being used in the Pacific when we were attacked by the Japanese, as were the ANZACs, as well as the British troops stationed there.


Were they? Singapore? Have to admit I lack in that area....


Oh and cheers for the book recommendation, I'll check it out when I have some money again.

Only thing to be aware is that it's not written as an "adventure" book. Some would find it dry at times.

Nooooo. The 163 was a rocket with a cockpit and cannons. Hellishly fast, but ridiculously unsafe.

The 262 was a phenomenal design project that could've made some serious impact had Hitler not demanded a fighter-bomber, pushing it back a bit.

Point being was there was thought in the Me-262. The 163 would have never amounted to much simply because of the fuel burn. Our slower fighters figured that out and waited for it to glide.....

Nooooo. The 163 was a rocket with a cockpit and cannons. Hellishly fast, but ridiculously unsafe.

The 262 was a phenomenal design project that could've made some serious impact had Hitler not demanded a fighter-bomber, pushing it back a bit.
See also the German wire-guided SAM system, which could have been operational by late 1943 had Hitler not been quite so nonchalant about the need for anti-aircraft defence.
Were they? Singapore? Have to admit I lack in that area....
Singapore, Burma, most of the smaller islands etc. etc.

The British were actually complete crap in those areas, it was mainly the Indian and ANZAC troops who saved the day.

*edits for the link*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean_raid <-- top example of a British cock-up
Only thing to be aware is that it's not written as an "adventure" book. Some would find it dry at times.
Meh, I quite like books that have a few facts and figures / slower bits / etc. as well as adventure.

Point being was there was thought in the Me-262. The 163 would have never amounted to much simply because of the fuel burn. Our slower fighters figured that out and waited for it to glide.....

Not that they needed to. More often than not, it'd just crash and burn/explode on landing. :D

The 163 would have never amounted to much simply because of the fuel burn. Our slower fighters figured that out and waited for it to glide.....
IIRC they shot down a few B-17s with the Me262s, because they could swoosh off pretty much vertically, fire a bit with their cannons, and then fly off again before they were completely annihilated, unlike most prop-driven aircraft, and they could probably have had even more success with the 162 (never heard of a 163) due to its top speed of around 900km/h.

IIRC they shot down a few B-17s with the Me262s, because they could swoosh off pretty much vertically, fire a bit with their cannons, and then fly off again before they were completely annihilated, unlike most prop-driven aircraft, and they could probably have had even more success with the 162 (never heard of a 163) due to its top speed of around 900km/h.

Pretty much and several German jets were shot down in high numbers by American P-51s.

If you listen to the analysis of Marshal Zhukov, one of history's great logistics generals, without US aid and support, the USSR would have folded in the Winter of 1942, starved of raw materials for it's war machine.

I love it when I get to throw this out there...

The list below is the amount of war matériel shipped to the Soviet Union through the Lend-Lease program from its beginning until 30 September 1945.

Aircraft 14,795
Tanks 7,056
Jeeps 51,503
Trucks 375,883
Motorcycles 35,170
Tractors 8,071
Guns 8,218
Machine guns 131,633
Explosives 345,735 tons
Building equipment valued $10,910,000
Railroad freight cars 11,155
Locomotives 1,981
Cargo ships 90
Submarine hunters 105
Torpedo boats 197
Ship engines 7,784
Food supplies 4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment $1,078,965,000
Non-ferrous metals 802,000 tons
Petroleum products 2,670,000 tons
Chemicals 842,000 tons
Cotton 106,893,000 tons
Leather 49,860 tons
Tires 3,786,000
Army boots 15,417,001 pairs

Zukhov knew what he was talking about.

Actually if I'm not mistaken Japan was the next to aquire the power of the atom, they even tested an A-Bomb with success just before we nuked them the first time. The Japanese beat Hitler to it. One could argue, though, that was because he was already defeated by that time.

...your mistaken.

Have you ever even looked at a history book? Where the hell are you getting this from?

Most unlikely, as Intercontinental B-36 bombers equipped with atomic weapons would have been ready by 1946. The US would have removed Hitler from power, but much of Europe would have suffered from the effects of atomic bombardment, thus making a suboptimal outcome.
If the US actually stayed all the way out of WWII, rather than playing arms broker, there would have been no B-36 bombers ready in 1946, and perhaps not even an atomic bomb by that point.

So although we may not have saved them from Nazi Germany, I submit that we did in fact save them (or at least half of the Continent) from several decades, at the least, of Soviet occupation.

Please, feel free to tell me why this theory is stupid. :D

No, it isn't stupid. It shows that the main reason for the USA to intervene in Europe against the Axis was to conquer half of Europe.

Ha.

No great novelties here.

Fighting fascism has never been a great issue to the US government. Might I remember:
1.What happened to the brave American volunteers who fought for the Spanish Republic against Franco once they got back home.
2.The USA didn't intervene when Poland got invaded. Or when France, Jugoslavija, Greece, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, Finnland (by the Soviets), the USSR got invaded. Neither when London was bombed every night by the Luftwaffe. They declared war only after Pearl Harbour was bombed.
3.Franco's Spain and Salazar's Portugal (fascist until the '70s) have always been good allies of the USA. Also the Argentinian junta, Pinochet...
4.There used to be a legal Nazi party in the USA before WW2, iirc, but communist and socialist parties were outlawed.

IIRC they shot down a few B-17s with the Me262s, because they could swoosh off pretty much vertically, fire a bit with their cannons, and then fly off again before they were completely annihilated, unlike most prop-driven aircraft, and they could probably have had even more success with the 162 (never heard of a 163) due to its top speed of around 900km/h.

Yeah...it is the 162...not 163. I mean really. The 162 was a killer plane to land. The usual mode of attack is as you describe. There was a variant that had a battery of six (I think) rockets on the top back of the fuselage. The idea was to fly under the enemy bomber and launch the rockets into the underbelly ripping it to shreds.

To the bloke who said the Nazis could have made a nuke....look up Vermork and Norsk Hydro.

Now there is a possibility that they exploded a very crude dirty bomb...but not a proper nuclear weapon. Rainer Karlsch published a book, Hitlers Bombe, in 2005 saying that they detonated a device on Rügen island and near Ohrdruf, Thuringia using POW's as guinea pigs.

(see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_energy_project)

Now we hear that the Japanese were more advanced than the Germans?? Please! The only thing the Japanese did was chemical and bio warfare research. Nukes....really please cite a source!

Russia needed those materials. One of the most important and yet unknown to few was the Baltic convoys. A war in its own right. And horrific. Yet without that merchant shipping Russia would have been in dire trouble.

Now we hear that the Japanese were more advanced than the Germans?? Please! The only thing the Japanese did was chemical and bio warfare research. Nukes....really please cite a source!
Japan may, or may not have been more advanced than the Germans in that area (something that historians are arguing about right now), but they were indeed researching nuclear weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atomic_program

Japan may, or may not have been more advanced than the Germans in that area (something that historians are arguing about right now), but they were indeed researching nuclear weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atomic_program

Yeah I knew about the research...but very hypothetical research by a very small number of people (as one would expect from scientists).

Then I read this in the wiki article...

In 1938 Japan also purchased a cyclotron from the University of California, Berkeley.

That changes things if true.

By the way, FYI, the USA never even declared war against Germany. Germany declared war on the USA. The USA only declared war against the Empire of Japan.

Yeah I knew about the research...but very hypothetical research by a very small number of people (as one would expect from scientists).

Then I read this in the wiki article...

That changes things if true.
That part is true, they were dumped into Tokyo Bay by the US. Like I said though, how close they got is a matter of conjecture, though some people associated with the project do claim that Japan got further than Germany.

That part is true, they were dumped into Tokyo Bay by the US. Like I said though, how close they got is a matter of conjecture, though some people associated with the project do claim that Japan got further than Germany.

Yeah. I bow to history. I never heard about the cyclotron...that really is very significant and adds veracity to the claims...

By the way, FYI, the USA never even declared war against Germany. Germany declared war on the USA. The USA only declared war against the Empire of Japan.
Yeah we did, it was after Germany declared war on us, but FDR did get a formal deceleration. http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/germwar.shtml

A few points here. The USA used both world wars for their own intrests. They let other countys fight for the opening periods of the war. While at the same time selling a shed load of weapons to everyone. therefor improving their own economy improving their factorys production speeds. So while the rest of the worlds powers economys were depleting rapidly. the usa enforced thier role and let thier economy grow. and as they did not have to rebuild established themselves as the biggest economy in the world by far. Then entering the war the rest is history. They made every other nation indebt to the usa to furhter secfure thier position. As for singlehandidly saving europe thats a joke. they saved themselves and helped HELPED NOT WON the war.

Oh yeah, technically speaking the US did win the war, given that was was declared against the Axis Powers and Japan was the last one standing. Since US actions were the excuse used by Japan to surrender, we did win the war.

Technically speaking. ;)

I doubt Germany was ever going to produce a nuclear bomb. Hitler viewed the science as tainted by Jews and, AFAIK, had mostly given up on the project in favour of V-2 rockets and the like.

The US did not "save" Europe. But, things would have been a lot tougher without us.

No one member of the Allies saved Europe. But if any one of the major players had not been part of that group effort, things would have been much more difficult.

Hitler [...] had mostly given up on the project in favour of V-2 rockets and the like.
Precisely.

The V-2 was comparable to the Manhattan Project in terms of money, expertise and industrial potential devoted to it.

Oh yeah, technically speaking the US did win the war, given that was was declared against the Axis Powers and Japan was the last one standing. Since US actions were the excuse used by Japan to surrender, we did win the war.

Technically speaking. ;)

Technically speaking, WW2 isn't over, since Japan and CCCP (and Russia) haven't signed a peace treaty, but just an armistice and a ceasefire... technically speaking, that is.;) ;)

Yeah...it is the 162...not 163. I mean really. The 162 was a killer plane to land. The usual mode of attack is as you describe.
Actually, know that I've checked the 163 out, it did exist indeed, but it was made by a different manufacturer, which is why I sort of forgot about it.

The 163 would have been pretty much unlandable, methinks, it being far too small as well as fast and all.
There was a variant that had a battery of six (I think) rockets on the top back of the fuselage. The idea was to fly under the enemy bomber and launch the rockets into the underbelly ripping it to shreds.
Yep, and in the Me262 they also had a night-fighter version with upwards-pointing MK 108 cannons so that it could fly under bombers and destroy them from underneath - which caused a lot of unexplained casualties until the Allies managed to capture one.

No, we in the US did not save Europe. Europe was saved by a partnership between Great Britain, the USA, and Russia. It may also be true that the United States was not even needed in World War II. However the fact remains that in protection of our own interests (wich is the same damn reason everyone else was involved, you can't argue that) we joined the Allies and HELPED win World War II. Given time there is little doubt that The Soviet Union and Great Britain would have been able to defeat the more technologically advanced Nazi Germany or at least fought them to a stalemate but things would be far different now than they are today.

As for the USA being a world 'super power' as a US citisen I completly disagree. We may have people with money and technological gizmos coming out the anus but we have yet to solve any of our own problems. To me the USA may be a nation a step above most but we are far from super powerful. We are just an in your face, butting in to your business with some asasult rifles and nukes, holier than thou group of people who aren't afraid of doing what we want, when we want, where we want. The Persians, the Macedonians, the Romans, and the Mongols were all the same way. They (and we) are just less afraid to do as we will. If you look into US history the longest amount of peace time this young nation has ever had is shy of 30 years. The US is a nation for the people, by the people, founded on the concept of going out there and kicking someone's ass every few years just to prove we aint afraid of them. Not a superpower.

Next time you should make sure to note that you are speaking your opinion and not cold hard fact.

You're thinking of the US now, post-WWII. You obviously haven't studied US Histroy as much as you claim otherwise you would know that up untill WWII, America was an extreamly isolationist country. When France asked for our help during their revolution we said "no" and when Europe asked for our help in both World Wars, we said "No" all the way up untill the end. With the exception of James Madison who picked a fight with Britian, America's wars untill then have been about protecting America's interest. We werern't some international bully then. America was not in your face about anything except protecting it's part of the Hemosphere as stated in the "Monroe Doctrine". Which is quite ironic when you think about it because you sit here and berate American Foreign policy, both then and now, and yet the Monroe Doctrine was signed into effect because of Europe's increasing, as you so put it, "In your face" attitude, IE their outreach of colonies into the Western Hemisphere.

And as recent as the 1970's we are also a nation full of whiny quitters who run away at the face of adversity.

Thanks to the Liberal appeasers who would rather give concessions instead of going all "Patton" on our enemy to win fast. They tie the hands of our troops with ludacris "Rules of War" and such which the other side, historically, almost never follows anyways then cry they are for our troops even as they call them baby killers and monsters behind their backs. And no I don't condon torture. I meant more like rules "Don't fire unless fired upon". How stupid is that? If you see the enemy kill the little bastard.

Of course that's how I see it and is only my opinion. I'd rather go into a country, if we actually have to, with guns blazing to beat the hell outta the enemy and get our boys home "in time for christmas". Thank god the liberals back in WWII weren't as bad as the ones are now or we'd really have been screwed. And no, I'm not conservative, I just dispise professional politicians, especially those of the liberal democrat kind, a lot.

But this is an oppinions thread. The other thread on WWII is a lets prove the facts thread. I'm entitled to my opinion same as you are. In fact I think we should agree to disagree and respect each other's opinions. NO matter how right mine is and how wrong your's is. :D

Technically speaking, WW2 isn't over, since Japan and CCCP (and Russia) haven't signed a peace treaty, but just an armistice and a ceasefire... technically speaking, that is.;) ;)
Very true, and we're just about around that time of year when the Japanese media reminds us about it, repeatedly.

Actually, know that I've checked the 163 out, it did exist indeed, but it was made by a different manufacturer, which is why I sort of forgot about it.

The 163 would have been pretty much unlandable, methinks, it being far too small as well as fast and all.

Yep, and in the Me262 they also had a night-fighter version with upwards-pointing MK 108 cannons so that it could fly under bombers and destroy them from underneath - which caused a lot of unexplained casualties until the Allies managed to capture one.

Actually I was talking crap again. Dear god this is getting silly now.

The Me 163 Komet is the correct plane (rocket powered) etc etc

The Heinkel He 162 is a jet powered plane.

I can't believe I got that wrong. Maybe my braincells are rotting away due to age or something.

Again if the USA was capable of defeating Germany on its own... Then why did it take so long for all the allies put together to do it: If the USA could have done it on its own, then all the allies together should have only taken about half a year to go from start to finish.

Again if the USA was capable of defeating Germany on its own... Then why did it take so long for all the allies put together to do it: If the USA could have done it on its own, then all the allies together should have only taken about half a year to go from start to finish.
Because Ford and GM were making absolutely craploads of money from the Germans, and most Americans probably didn't want to be involved in a European war which was doubtless to cost a great many American lives at the time?