"America Saved Britain"

[Monroe]

Many times, I hear Americans lecture that they saved Britain in WW2.

I have to wonder, what if Britain hadn't chosen to fight WW2 to start with? What if Chamberlain hadn't made assurances to Poland? Hitler had expected Britain to seek peace terms, especially after invading France. What if Britain had done what it was expected to do? What if Hitler had made a better appeal to reason with Britain?

Wouldn't the Axis have grown that much stronger? Wouldn't Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India have exited the war? Wouldn't Japan still have gone after America eventually? From what I've read America was scrambling by the time they were attacked and were unprepared for war. Would have America been able to stand against Germany, Italy, Russia and Japan?

 

[frank raud]

Going to war is not necessarily a "choice" that you get to make. Germany had conquered most of Europe, was working on Africa. Working their way towards world domination, with the assistance of their Axis partners. What do you think Britain could have done? Allow Germany to take over?

 

[Monroe]

Going to war is not necessarily a "choice" that you get to make. Germany had conquered most of Europe, was working on Africa. Working their way towards world domination, with the assistance of their Axis partners. What do you think Britain could have done? Allow Germany to take over?

Yes. America happily watched Germany take over. Britain was offered good terms for peace. Why is it that America joining the war is often seen as "saving Britain?" Britain had a choice. Britain could have surrendered. I'm glad Britain didn't. But it was a reasonable option given Britain wasn' recovered from WW1 yet and not in a position to start a war against Germany, Italy and Russia. Britain was offered better terms than other European countries and Hitler was gambling on Britain joining him.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I am not an expert on this. All I can offer is opinion based on my flawed understanding of history.

One of the things that many Americans do not remember or choose not to take note of is that the USA was profoundly against our getting involved in WWII. Having been involved in WWI, we had become isolationist as a nation. The majority had no interest in what was happening 'over there' in Europe. Our political and military leadership tended to see things differently, and tried to sway US opinion towards going to war with Germany.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...q=uk+makes+final+payment+for+lend-lease&hl=en

We were willing to make war material and lend/lease it to Great Britain and later, the Soviet Union and other countries. Many saw it, or it was sold, as a way to AVOID going to war; give the UK the means by which to win themselves, without our entering into the war. Sell the material instead of giving it away, so that Germany could not consider it a 'de facto' entry into the war by proxy.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes...ghth+Day+Over+Lease-Lend+Measure&pqatl=google

Few Americans took note of the 'final payment' that the UK just made to the US for that material. However, the UK seems to revel in this and fails to note that the 'final bill' was 4.4 Billion, written down the Truman Administration from 25 Billion dollars.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/baltsun...BY+U.S.;+NEW+LOAN+$4,400,000,000&pqatl=google

As to the actual question...

I think a lot depends on what time-frame you look at it. By the end of the war, England was nearly spent. The Soviets sacrificed more men that the US, of course, without question. But they also were not at the top of their game anymore. The US, on the other hand, had a roaring economy, and the 'arsenal of democracy' was pumping out monstrous amounts of material, from ships being built and launched in record time to what appeared to be a nearly inexhaustible supply of manpower. As the end of the war approached, we were approaching the zenith of our military might.

I think part of the US attitude that 'we saved yer butts' comes from the final outcome. The US and the USSR dictated the final terms of Germany's surrender. We divided up the world between ourselves, for the most part. And many thought we were just being 'safe' when we granted the Soviets status as equals; they would certainly become that, but many, including Patton, wanted to turn on them militarily while we had the might to destroy them.

I think another part of the attitude that Americans have it the pride we have in not imposing monstrous penalties on our fallen foes. We see ourselves, rightly or wrongly, as having helped Germany (and later Japan) back up to their feet again, dusted them off, and shook hands. We saw ourselves as not just saviors of Democracy in the larger sense, but also the epitome of concepts like fair play, forgiveness, and redemption.

Did America save Britain? Well, if you look at it from the standpoint of the entire war effort, I offer a qualified 'yes'. Without lend-lease, I doubt that England would have stood indefinitely against Germany but who knows? If you do not include lend-lease but just the military effort of the US, then perhaps and perhaps not.

Let me say that together, the US, the UK, and the USSR certainly stood against many, and we prevailed, and the world is a much better place because of it. In the USA, we have resources that the UK simply does not possess, due to our size, our manufacturing base (at the time) and even our American attitudes about bullies and what ought be done about them (again, at the time).

Who saved whom? We saved us. That's about all I can think is a fair statement.

 

[MA-Caver]

Going to war is not necessarily a "choice" that you get to make. Germany had conquered most of Europe, was working on Africa. Working their way towards world domination, with the assistance of their Axis partners. What do you think Britain could have done? Allow Germany to take over?

Absolutely not! After all the hard work Britain put in to their own version of world conquest... please don't be so gouche, :wink2: Besides it's our turn, since Russia botched their attempt.
Anyway, America wasn't exactly scrabbling even after Pearl Harbor. We got off our duffs and brushed off our pants and went right to work in the manner that Yamamoto knew we would. Shook hands with England in an agreement to help each other out and then prospered again when it was all over. Of course Britain had other allies as well... just (then) not so well equipped, the aforementioned Soviets. By attacking the "rear" of the German war-machine as it were it divided the Nazi's enough where they couldn't win in the long run.

 

[frank raud]

America was theoritically neutral in the war until the attack of Pearl Harbour. I would debate the "happily watched" part of your statement. How many countries surrendered before being invaded?

 

[Monroe]

Bill Mattocks - That doesn't answer my question. What if Britain didn't fight? Where would the US have been? It wouldn't have made money off of the war effort Britain put in.

 

[Monroe]

I would debate the "happily watched" part of your statement.

Putting Britain in debt for decades while remaining neutral through Nazi Germany taking over Europe doesn't give me the impression that America actually cared. What am I missing here?

 

[punisher73]

Anyone find it odd that the most important ships from Pearl Harbor were moved just prior to the attack? Alot of people think/feel that the US knew about the attack (not the absolute specifics, just that one had been planned) and allowed it to happen as a justification to enter the war since the public at large didn't want to get involved. It was very hard to convince the public to enter the european stage instead of starting the war in the pacific first since it was Japan that attacked us.

 

[Xue Sheng]

My only reply to this entire speculative history post, which will likely not end well, is....

If the Titanic did not hit the iceberg it wouldn't have sunk..... but it did

Thank You and good night

 

[JohnEdward]

Bill you just had to burst that bubble...didn't you. Now what am I going to use against Tez when I can't no longer justify Americanism, and that fact the British created the language? Doh! The truth hurts....damn it.

 

[Monroe]

Absolutely not! After all the hard work Britain put in to their own version of world conquest... please don't be so gouche, :wink2: Besides it's our turn, since Russia botched their attempt.
Anyway, America wasn't exactly scrabbling even after Pearl Harbor. We got off our duffs and brushed off our pants and went right to work in the manner that Yamamoto knew we would. Shook hands with England in an agreement to help each other out and then prospered again when it was all over. Of course Britain had other allies as well... just (then) not so well equipped, the aforementioned Soviets. By attacking the "rear" of the German war-machine as it were it divided the Nazi's enough where they couldn't win in the long run.

I'm no expert but it sure sounds like America was scrambling when Pearl Harbour was attacked. And Germany declared war on the States 4 days after PH, before America declared war on Germany.

http://www.worldwariihistory.info/WWII/United-States.html

"On December 7, 1941, while German armies were freezing before Moscow, Japan suddenly pushed the United States into the struggle by attacking the American naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Four days later Hitler declared war on the United States. President Roosevelt called on Congress for immediate and massive expansion of the armed forces. Twenty years of neglect and indifference, however, could not be overcome in a few days.

Helpless as American garrisons in the Pacific fell to the Japanese in the spring of 1942, military leaders in Washington worked feverishly to create a headquarters that could direct a distant war effort and to turn the fledgling ground and air units into viable, balanced fighting forces. "

" [FONT=arial, helvetica][SIZE=-1]The first U.S. troops arrived in the British Isles in January 1942, but nearly a year passed before they went into action against the Axis. "[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[frank raud]

Putting Britain in debt for decades while remaining neutral through Nazi Germany taking over Europe doesn't give me the impression that America actually cared. What am I missing here?

As has already been stated on this thread by others, while the American public largely wanted to remain neutral, the American government (and industry) was very concerned about what was happening in Europe and elsewhere. Watching trade partners collapse is not something that can be described as "happily watched". There was plenty of behind doors involvement prior to the American declaration of war. Do you think it was a complete coincidence that the British setup a spy school on Whitby prior to the Americans declaring war? Do you think it is a coincidence that the first directors of the CIA were trained there? Are you familiar with the early works of William Donovan, or perhaps why William Stephenson had his office for the BSC in Rockerfeller center from 1940?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill Mattocks - That doesn't answer my question. What if Britain didn't fight? Where would the US have been? It wouldn't have made money off of the war effort Britain put in.

I don't know. I'd like to believe that the US would have eventually prevailed against all comers; fortunately we are not part of the European continent and therefore somewhat harder to invade. But I can't say. I have no idea.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

My only reply to this entire speculative history post, which will likely not end well, is....

If the Titanic did not hit the iceberg it wouldn't have sunk..... but it did

Thank You and good night

My father used to say "And if your aunt had testicles, she'd be your uncle!" Except he didn't say 'testicles'.

 

[Tez3]

I am not an expert on this. All I can offer is opinion based on my flawed understanding of history.

One of the things that many Americans do not remember or choose not to take note of is that the USA was profoundly against our getting involved in WWII. Having been involved in WWI, we had become isolationist as a nation. The majority had no interest in what was happening 'over there' in Europe. Our political and military leadership tended to see things differently, and tried to sway US opinion towards going to war with Germany.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...q=uk+makes+final+payment+for+lend-lease&hl=en

We were willing to make war material and lend/lease it to Great Britain and later, the Soviet Union and other countries. Many saw it, or it was sold, as a way to AVOID going to war; give the UK the means by which to win themselves, without our entering into the war. Sell the material instead of giving it away, so that Germany could not consider it a 'de facto' entry into the war by proxy.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes...ghth+Day+Over+Lease-Lend+Measure&pqatl=google

Few Americans took note of the 'final payment' that the UK just made to the US for that material. However, the UK seems to revel in this and fails to note that the 'final bill' was 4.4 Billion, written down the Truman Administration from 25 Billion dollars.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/baltsun...BY+U.S.;+NEW+LOAN+$4,400,000,000&pqatl=google

As to the actual question...

I think a lot depends on what time-frame you look at it. By the end of the war, England was nearly spent. The Soviets sacrificed more men that the US, of course, without question. But they also were not at the top of their game anymore. The US, on the other hand, had a roaring economy, and the 'arsenal of democracy' was pumping out monstrous amounts of material, from ships being built and launched in record time to what appeared to be a nearly inexhaustible supply of manpower. As the end of the war approached, we were approaching the zenith of our military might.

I think part of the US attitude that 'we saved yer butts' comes from the final outcome. The US and the USSR dictated the final terms of Germany's surrender. We divided up the world between ourselves, for the most part. And many thought we were just being 'safe' when we granted the Soviets status as equals; they would certainly become that, but many, including Patton, wanted to turn on them militarily while we had the might to destroy them.

I think another part of the attitude that Americans have it the pride we have in not imposing monstrous penalties on our fallen foes. We see ourselves, rightly or wrongly, as having helped Germany (and later Japan) back up to their feet again, dusted them off, and shook hands. We saw ourselves as not just saviors of Democracy in the larger sense, but also the epitome of concepts like fair play, forgiveness, and redemption.

Did America save Britain? Well, if you look at it from the standpoint of the entire war effort, I offer a qualified 'yes'. Without lend-lease, I doubt that England would have stood indefinitely against Germany but who knows? If you do not include lend-lease but just the military effort of the US, then perhaps and perhaps not.

Let me say that together, the US, the UK, and the USSR certainly stood against many, and we prevailed, and the world is a much better place because of it. In the USA, we have resources that the UK simply does not possess, due to our size, our manufacturing base (at the time) and even our American attitudes about bullies and what ought be done about them (again, at the time).

Who saved whom? We saved us. That's about all I can think is a fair statement.

I have to disagree with the part I've highlighted in red, far from revelling in this in the UK the sad fact is that along with a great deal of information from the war the modern Briton actually has little knowledge of what happened. Ask many people these days and they don't actually know much about the war, they can't say whether America saved us or not, they simply don't know much about it all. To my mind it's a sad indictment of the times, it was a long time ago admittedly but there are still enough people around from them and it's a very important era in world history, so much that was settled after this and the First World War affects us to this day that not to know much about the wars is criminal.
The second series of Downton Abbey, a 'costume' drama set in the First World seems to be educating young people ( and not so young) more about that time than schools are!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I have to disagree with the part I've highlighted in red, far from revelling in this in the UK the sad fact is that along with a great deal of information from the war the modern Briton actually has little knowledge of what happened. Ask many people these days and they don't actually know much about the war, they can't say whether America saved us or not, they simply don't know much about it all. To my mind it's a sad indictment of the times, it was a long time ago admittedly by there are still enough people around from them and it's a very important era in world history, so much that was settled after this and the First World War affects us to this day that not to know much about the wars is criminal.
The second series of Downton Abbey, a 'costume' drama set in the First World seems to be educating young people ( and not so young) more about that time than schools are!

I think what you're saying is you're objecting to people not coming to the same conclusion as yourself about WWII. Sorry.

As to your objection to my statement that the UK seems to revel in the paying back of the lend/lease money whilst not acknowledging that the US wrote the debt down to 21 cents on the dollar, it's my experience. I have had "You bastards charged us for the war material, you didn't give it to us, and WE PAID BACK EVERY CENT!"

You can read this statement all over the place:

http://www.volconvo.com/forums/politics-government/32143-america-forces-won-wwii-3.html

Quote by: Diogenes View Post
yes, America did help supply us during both wars ' prior ' to getting involved themselves...but we had to pay cash up-front for everything prior to lend-lease, and had to pay back every penny during and after lend-lease...

http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/united-kingdom/36073-british-attitudes-towards-us-wwii-4.html

Now I was a young lad during WW2, and the Americans were made more than welcome and were great company.
Now America used the war to break down the British Empire..The first few years of the war we had to pay cash for any thing we bought from the States, which is understandable. Once we had handed over all our cash and every share that we held in American Companies then we went over to what was called lend lease, where borrowed on the understanding that all the money would be paid back after the war. Well the war ended and we did not have the cash so one of the conditions was that we should gradually break up the Empire, which we did, and we must have been one of the few countries that paid back every penny we borrowed from America even if it did take sixty years.

http://www.sysopt.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-203356.html

Our Queen, traces lineage back to Harold, killed 1066. It really doesn't get any better. The Normans, were Vikings, who stayed, settled Normandy and started building..................... Castles. When the Normans invaded in 1066, they actually fought on both sides. Hitler was beaten in the Atlantic by the Royal Navy and Merchant marine in 1943. That's how all your tenderfoot yank ****'s got across the atlantic for Torch, Overlord and Dragoon. We saved your sorry arses. Yes, we also paid back every penny of Lend-Lease and you mock that. What happened to you lot?

Well, it goes on and on. It's a common attitude in the UK, from what I can tell. Sorry, that's my experience.

Even UK newspapers, when the UK paid back the final installment in 2006, noted that the UK had paid back the 'entire 4.6 Billion (USD)'. Yes, they paid it all back. Except it was over 25 Billion USD before Truman forgave more than 75% of it, and most of the remainder of that debt was on ships and other material that the UK wanted to keep rather than return, and paid 10 cents on the dollar for them.

So regarding paying back every cent...uh, no you didn't. Sorry. Facts are facts. The US taxpayer paid back more than 75 percent of your debt. You're welcome. You don't have to thank us. But don't make us out to be Shylocks, either.

 

[Sukerkin]

Then please stop bringing it up as if it was some divinely virtuous act, especially as much of that wealth came from the manufacturing boom that arose from the war. America did very well out of the deal.

Your President of the time thought up a cunning way to get a war, against a threat that he rightly foresaw, fought by proxy. He managed to do it without actually breaking the diplomatic rules, until such time as he could persuade his people that it was in their interests to really get involved. Clever indeed. Plus, he negotiated well for the ceding of the influence of the British Empire into American hands so that, when victory came, America would be right on the doorstep. Plus he got all the scientific advances we had as part of the deal.

Also, you are welcome to the use of our country as an unsinkable aircraft carrier from which to carry out the postwar Superpower Jousting match - we who lived under the very real expectation of being atomised have surely not been harmed by the decades of stress.

We have been mightily harmed by the past seventy years of being told how we got saved by the Yanks.

That is not only historically wrong but is a sure-fire way to get on anybody's bad side.

So thanks for the fact that your best interests happened to fall with helping us deal with a war that we really shouldn't have been in in the first place.

 

[Tez3]

Bill that's unfair. the sad thing is that school children haven't been taught much about the wars for a long time now, please don't put words in my mouth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/uk/newsid_3767000/3767533.stm

As calling us/me Shylock/s? Inappropriate to say the least, a different phrasing would have been better if you think we didn't pay enough back.


The Queen doesn't trace her lineage back to Harold btw, completely wrong so that sort of casts doubt on that site doesn't it.

We've had Americans telling us things we don't agree with and you've had Brits telling you things you didn't agree with, that's life I'm afraid. Calling us Shylocks though is offensive especially to me.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill that's unfair. the sad thing is that school children haven't been taught much about the wars for a long time now, please don't put words in my mouth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/uk/newsid_3767000/3767533.stm

As calling us/me Shylock/s? Inappropriate to say the least, a different phrasing would have been better if you think we didn't pay enough back.


The Queen doesn't trace her lineage back to Harold btw, completely wrong so that sort of casts doubt on that site doesn't it.

We've had Americans telling us things we don't agree with and you've had Brits telling you things you didn't agree with, that's life I'm afraid. Calling us Shylocks though is offensive especially to me.

Where did you read that? I said, "You don't have to thank us. But don't make us out to be Shylocks, either." Pronoun trouble? :angel: