The colossal strength of Britain in WW2

If the US (and by the same logic) Japan were not involved in the war then Singapore would not have fallen we would not have had such a concern for resources being expended in Burma and the region. Drawing just on Commonwealth and Allied nation troops a second front could have still been opened, the war in Africa had been largely won and the Italian campaign could still feasibly have occurred.

However as has been said the war would have likely lasted longer but Russia would have been likely to have pushed right up to the French border, if not further and the geographical and political map could be very different today.

If Japan had still worked on their territorial gains to the West then who knows…

John – the book has arrived and looks intriguing!! I have Chapman Pincher to finish first and then I’ll be into it. I’ll report back in due course!:)

Of course there is one thing the UK did bring to WW2 that was decisive and that the USA could not have overcome, or acheived a victory without. A land base.

By late 1944, the war on three fronts was to Britain’s advantage

Chaps, before coming to any conclusions about who did what when and how, I would urge you to read David Edgerton’s book. It will remove much of the mythology that has grown around the conduct of WW2.

Well, I certainly intend to as soon as it arrives. But the question begged is would the war have been fought on three fronts, let alone two, without US support in money, men and materiel? I remain to be convinced.

I think that Bemused 55 makes a realistic point. He points out, and I agree, that without U.S help, the war would certainly have proceeded for another two years apart that is, from the use of nuclear weapons, plans for which were well advanced by British nuclear weapons specialists.

By late 1944, the war on three fronts was to Britain’s advantage. In Eastern Europe, the Soviet Army was rampant. Bomber Command was very busy effectively and comprehensively demolishing Germany. In the Far East The Japanese Army was defeated by British and Commonwealth forces in battle after battle in Burma and was rapidly retreating South.

Kev 35 mentions help from the U.S Navy prior to them entering the war. The Anglophobe American Admiral, Admiral King, was utterly opposed to any help or advice from the British Navy regarding convoy protection and American shipping suffered accordingly at the hands of what the German Kreigsmarine, U boat arm, called the “Happy Time”. Significant convoy protection was given by the Canadian Navy – without their assistance, Churchill’s worst nightmare regarding the Battle of the Atlantic might have proved true.

Chaps, before coming to any conclusions about who did what when and how, I would urge you to read David Edgerton’s book. It will remove much of the mythology that has grown around the conduct of WW2.

I just don’t see the argument for the war being won without US aid.

Neither do I. Not only in materiel but men too. Sandy, remember the war was not only fought against Germany and Italy, it was against the Empire of Japan too. Had Britain and her Commonwealth and Dominion Allies not held out against Germany in 1940 and 41 there would have no longer been a war to fight. America adopted a policy of Germany first even though it was Japan which attacked Pearl Harbor. Look how swiftly Japan took Singapore and Malaya and half of the Pacific too.

It should also be remembered that US warships were involved in convoy protection well before any declaration of war either by or against the United States.

Could the Commonwealth and Russia have beaten Germany without any US intervention? I doubt it to be honest, not unless something radical like atomic weapons were employed. In 1944, Britain was towards the end of her rope regarding manpower. Just under half of those landing on D-Day were Americans. Of the almost 200,000 Naval personnel involved just shy of 53,000 were American.

British involvement in the Pacific was negligible. The island hopping campaign to recover Japanese held islands in the Pacific, in terms of ground forces, was almost exclusively American.

Regards,

kev35

Me too, thanks.

Bmused55 – surely Hitler lost because the war was fought on two fronts. Without US support and money Hilter could have concentrated in the East. I just don’t see the argument for the war being won without US aid.

Andy,
Thanks for the info. I’ll try to find a copy.

Pleasing that somebody has covered this subject.

If you can get hold of it, the 1964 MSO book “Design & Development of Weapons” by Postan, Hay and Scott makes for interesting reading and will doubtless be a useful companion to the book by David Edgerton.

This is something I’ve known about for years (Subject matter, not the book). I always like to correct Americans who claim they won the war or only with their help was the war won.

Britain and her commonwealth, along with Russia would have eventually defeated Germany, it just would have taken a little longer is all.

This is not to downplay America’s important contribution or to devalue the lives risked and lost by her armed forced, naturally I continue to be grateful and honour them.

‘UK plc’ finally paid off its American World War II debt in 2006 – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4757181.stm

Cross post with Charlie!

We borrowed about £650 million from the US at 1940 values (about £35 billion at today’s values) under lend-lease and made the last repayment about 5 years ago.

What amazes me is how me managed to pay for it all. Seems these days we haven’t got the money to build a new rail link, or a school. But WW2. I’ll have 100+ airfields please! That’s just for starters.

Will do, John.

Charlie,
When you’ve had a chance to look thru’ it, I’d like to know your opinion.

Thanks John, just ordered it from Amazon!!:)