A World without America

[raptor10]

Or, you could flip it around and say without FRANCE there would be no America... While they came in late in the Revolution, they did assist us...

Twice, that Louisiana Purchase was a good deal...

 

[snake020]

Or, you could flip it around and say without FRANCE there would be no America... While they came in late in the Revolution, they did assist us...

That is like saying the Soviets helped us beat Japan when they declared war and invaded Manchuria the day after the first atomic bomb was dropped.

 

[HeyJoe]

That is like saying the Soviets helped us beat Japan when they declared war and invaded Manchuria the day after the first atomic bomb was dropped.

Don't agree as French Navy sealed off Chesapeake thereby convincing the British troops under seige at Yorktown by American and French troops that they could not be saved by promised relief force overdue from New York.

That said, France held off officially until late in the game like Soviets did, but they did factor in the British decision to sue for peace vice drag on awhile longer whereas Soviet declaring war on Japan was more of a land grab (opportunistic strategy that ultimately set us up for conflict in Korea) with little risk of Japanese threat (to my mind).

 

[Catmando]

That is like saying the Soviets helped us beat Japan when they declared war and invaded Manchuria the day after the first atomic bomb was dropped.

Not Japan. However the Soviets certainly helped us defeat the Germans, albeit at a staggering cost. 11 million Soviet soldiers were killed, as were seven million Soviet civilians.

In fact, for every American soldier killed fighting the Germans, eighty Soviet soldiers died fighting them. Nevertheless, there are some historians who believe that by mid 1944, the USSR was strong enough to "defeat Germany eventually, without any Anglo-American second front." linky

Regardless, the brutal Soviet experience on the Eastern Front set the stage for their collective paranoia, and four decades of Cold War. Thus it was in some part, the Soviet's horrendous Eastern Front experience that led indirectly to influencing US foreign policy and the "arms race" over that 40-year period.

 

[Huggy Bear]

That is like saying the Soviets helped us beat Japan when they declared war and invaded Manchuria the day after the first atomic bomb was dropped.

The french didn't join until late, but they did provide aid throughout. The world war (of which our revolution was only a part) they were fighting against england bankrupted their court. In fact, the french felt really burned since they financed our revolution and we sidelined them for the peace negotiations.

 

[Huggy Bear]

Don't agree as French Navy sealed off Chesapeake thereby convincing the British troops under seige at Yorktown by American and French troops that they could not be saved by promised relief force overdue from New York.

That said, France held off officially until late in the game like Soviets did, but they did factor in the British decision to sue for peace vice drag on awhile longer whereas Soviet declaring war on Japan was more of a land grab (opportunistic strategy that ultimately set us up for conflict in Korea) with little risk of Japanese threat (to my mind).

The soviet's late action against the japanese (from our perspective) was actually ok'd by the western allies. An earlier agreement commited the soviets to the war against japan, but not until germany was defeated. From the soviet point of view, D-day and the push through france and into germany seemed late and opportunistic.

 

[Flash]

Huh? Seems to me the RAF (albeit with a bunch of US pilots) did quite nicely in the battle of Britain. If you're referencing the idea that the US stopped Hitler in Europe, than maybe so... I think Hitler stopped Hitler more than us, if he hadn't have decided to move to a two-front war by attacking Russia, he probably could have grown unchecked.

I don't think 7 Americans out of 2927 total (574 of them foreigners) is a bunch, that is the official number that served in the RAF in the Battle of Britian http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/roll.html. Granted, there were a few that enlisted as 'Canadians' but overall Americans really did not play that big a role until 1941 and 1942 with the creation of the 'Eagle' squadrons and even then it was not that militarily significant (on;y three squadrons out of dozens). That is addition to the the Czech, Free French and especially the Polish along with volunteers from other occupied countries and the Empire that had citizens in the RAF.

 

[Flash]

If Hitler had gained control of Europe, Britain wouldn't have lasted long.
Your right about the two-front war though.

I thought Hitler did gain control of almost all of Europe..........

 

[Catmando]

I've always found that to be an interesting fact. On one hand, modern Russians can make a decent claim that they, more than anybody else, won World War II.

On the other hand, the loss figures reflect Soviet military policy more than Soviet military accomplishments (imho). You could argue that the United States could have won the same battles and taken fewer losses. You could also argue that Stalin let his country get backed into a corner during the opening weeks of the German invasion, ultimately setting up the Soviets for brutal battles that could only be won by mass conscription and attrition tactics. Had FDR or Churchill been in Stalin's shoes, they might not have let the situation degrade to a "last stand" scenario (a la Stalingrad).

Your points are well taken. Indeed, Stalin's earlier purge of the Red Officer corps and insistence on premature counterattacks resulted in excessive and unnecessary losses. Nevertheless, the stunning effectiveness of the blitzkrieg caught even the best western military strategists by surprise. Later in the war, the Red Army recovered, and became much more effective. And they would eventually reach and capture the German Capitol ahead of the Americans. Moreover, whatever FDR or Churchill may have done in Stalin's situation is unfortunately hypothetical, and thus immaterial. What actually occurred is what is relevant.

The Eastern Front with 30 million dead is thought to be the most costly conflict in history. It involved more land combat than all other WW-II combined. Unlike the Western Front tactics of maneuver and envelopment supported by air power, the Eastern Front tactics were of massive frontal assault and siege tactics – tactics that by their very nature result in much higher casualties.

The Germans had to maintain over two million front line combat troops on the Eastern Front, compared to less than a million on the Western Front. And the best German divisions went to the Eastern Front. While not nearly as high as the Soviet losses, the German losses on the Eastern far outweighed those on the Western Front. Furthermore, the acts of atrocities on both sides of the Eastern Front were far beyond anything on the Western Front. The mass slaughter of Eastern Front civilians has no comparison (except perhaps on a much smaller scale, Japan in Nanking).

Finally, the US contribution to the Eastern Front – in the form of massive lend-lease support - should not be overlooked . . . "almost $11 billion in materials, including over 400,000 jeeps and trucks, 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, enough to equip some 20-odd U.S. armored divisions), 14,000 aircraft, and 1.75 million tons of food" given to the Russians.... That certainly helped to tip the scales.

 

[Lawman]

Your points are well taken. Indeed, Stalin's earlier purge of the Red Officer corps and insistence on premature counterattacks resulted in excessive and unnecessary losses. Nevertheless, the stunning effectiveness of the blitzkrieg caught even the best western military strategists by surprise. Later in the war, the Red Army recovered, and became much more effective. And they would eventually reach and capture the German Capitol ahead of the Americans. Moreover, whatever FDR or Churchill may have done in Stalin's situation is unfortunately hypothetical, and thus immaterial. What actually occurred is what is relevant.

The Eastern Front with 30 million dead is thought to be the most costly conflict in history. It involved more land combat than all other WW-II combined. Unlike the Western Front tactics of maneuver and envelopment supported by air power, the Eastern Front tactics were of massive frontal assault and siege tactics – tactics that by their very nature result in much higher casualties.

The Germans had to maintain over two million front line combat troops on the Eastern Front, compared to less than a million on the Western Front. And the best German divisions went to the Eastern Front. While not nearly as high as the Soviet losses, the German losses on the Eastern far outweighed those on the Western Front. Furthermore, the acts of atrocities on both sides of the Eastern Front were far beyond anything on the Western Front. The mass slaughter of Eastern Front civilians has no comparison (except perhaps on a much smaller scale, Japan in Nanking).

Finally, the US contribution to the Eastern Front – in the form of massive lend-lease support - should not be overlooked . . . "almost $11 billion in materials, including over 400,000 jeeps and trucks, 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, enough to equip some 20-odd U.S. armored divisions), 14,000 aircraft, and 1.75 million tons of food" given to the Russians.... That certainly helped to tip the scales.

You forgot the Massive unending Strategic bombing of German Factories and Resource centers that no doubt made a hell of an impact as to the German capability to combat Russian Advances. I would argue that had that not happened the Russians would not have made nearly the gains they did because you would have been dealing with two massive military forces just throwing themselves at eachother instead of the two giants fighting while we slit the achilles tendon of one of them.

 

[Catmando]

You forgot the Massive unending Strategic bombing of German Factories and Resource centers that no doubt made a hell of an impact as to the German capability to combat Russian Advances. I would argue that had that not happened the Russians would not have made nearly the gains they did because you would have been dealing with two massive military forces just throwing themselves at eachother instead of the two giants fighting while we slit the achilles tendon of one of them.

I tend to agree. However, the true effectiveness of Allied bombing and its part in determining the outcome of WW-II has long been debated.

While the Allied bombing campaign certainly hastened the wars conclusion, it was not the deciding factor. Nor was it intended to be. In fact, German war material production actually increased every year of the war, despite the intensive strategic bombing. Final German capitulation came not because of the bombing campaign, but because of the Allied land campaigns on the two fronts.

Some argue that by the time the Allied bombing campaign was in full swing, the eventual German defeat had already been decided. Only 30k tons of bombs were dropped in 1941, 40k in 1942, and 120k tons in 1943. During those early years, British and Soviet survival hung in the balance. But then the momentum changed, without yet the really heavy aerial strategic bombardment.

By the middle of 1944, the Soviets had mostly won their land war, and the Allies were advancing rapidly in Normandy. Only then, after the tide had turned and with the eventual outcome of the war in sight did the allied bombing campaign jump from only 120,000 tons in 1943 to 650,000 tons in 1944 and an incredible 1.5 million tons in 1945 until wars end.

The debate continues today. While strategic bombing is necessary, just how effective is it in determining a war's outcome? And what is its rightful place in the execution of a combined and coordinated war plan?

 

[Lawman]

I wouldnt put as much impact from the bombing on the tonnage dropped but on the resources expended to combat it. All those 109's and 190's that were spending time and fuel and pilots to combat the seemingly unending bombing raids would have made far more impact on the Eastern Front had they been allowed to be expended over there.

 

[Catmando]

I wouldnt put as much impact from the bombing on the tonnage dropped but on the resources expended to combat it. All those 109's and 190's that were spending time and fuel and pilots to combat the seemingly unending bombing raids would have made far more impact on the Eastern Front had they been allowed to be expended over there.

And you make an excellent point. One of the greatest benefits of Allied strategic bombing was not so much to affect German war material production, as it was to force redistribution of German military resources.

Not only the 109's and 190's had to be re-deployed, but also anti-aircraft artillery and their personnel to counter Allied bombing. And many other vital support personnel had to be withdrawn from both fronts to rebuild and relocate bombed factories and infrastructure.

Nevertheless, the war was still won by the grunts on the ground, on both fronts…and not by air. And it was essentially won prior to the massive Allied bombing.

 

[BlackDog421]

I thought Hitler did gain control of almost all of Europe..........

He did in the early years of the war, I mean if he was able to defeat the US and Russia and gain control of Europe, it would only have been a matter of time before he successfully invaded Great Britain.

 

[BlackDog421]

Nevertheless, the war was still won by the grunts on the ground, on both fronts…and not by air. And it was essentially won prior to the massive Allied bombing.

I know you are talking about the war in Europe, and you are right even though air power still played a large role. The pacific war however, was decided for the most part by air to air (carrier to carrier) engagements such as the battle of Coral Sea. When the marines were in their island hopping campaign, they were capturing airfields on the larger islands to allow safe passage of bombers to mainland Japan. The invention and development of airplanes and air tactics turned the pacific war on it's head.