US Involvement in WWII

[Empty Hands]

This thread is in response to a challenge raised in another thread.

My contention is that US involvement was important but not essential for defeating the Germans in WWII. Note, this supposition does not include the Japanese, the defeat of whom I do think US involvement was essential.

By the time that the US entered the war, the German offensive had been stalled, and was either stagnant or being rolled back. On the western front, the early escape of the British Expeditionary Force at Dunkirk, the decision not to cross the channel and invade by the Germans, and the heroic efforts of the RAF in the Battle of Britain, when combined with the results of the Eastern front, produced a stalemate that endured until the US entered the war.

On the eastern front, the early decision to drive south to the oil fields instead of to Moscow, the Russian winter, and the scorched earth tactics and extraordinary sacrifices of the Russian military all insured that the German offensive failed. The failure of the eastern offensive also helped stall the western offensive, and the Russians began rolling back the German military with little direct help. Direct US pressure only accelerated this process as resources were directed to the western front to match the US presence.

The German defeat was also sped along both before and after US involvement by the diversion of resources to militarily unimportant goals such as manning the death camps.

Thoughts, objections?

 

[grydth]

I was the challenger.

Let's start the critique by defining terms and setting dates. What do you define as US "involvement" and what date do you contend this nation became involved?

Just so it is clear why I am asking... one of my uncles was on the Murmansk run during World War II, the hellish runs through aircraft and U-boats by Western Allied merchant ships to bring war supplies to the Russians.

You make a critical error in not factoring in the economic assistance rendered by the US to those fighting the Axis, which commenced well prior to Decemmber 1941.

 

[Steel Tiger]

I actually think that US involvement was critical to the Aliied victory in Europe. Not so much in terms of manpower, but in financial and manufacturing might. Let me try to explain.

As far as manpower was concerned the full might of the British Empire was never brought to bare against Germany because it became unnecessary with the US's injection of troops in '42. There were thousands of troops from Canada, India, Africa who were never fully used during the war and Australian troops left the European theatre in '43 to protect Australia from the Japanese. I do think that if it had come down to it, the Empire and its allies would have had the manpower.

But what they didn't have was the US's financial strength and manufacturing power. The British Empire may well have been wealthier than the US at the time but that wealth was massively dispersed and not easy to utilise. Imperial manufacturing was, of course, scattered throughout a dozen or more countries while the US's was concentrated.

Without the financial and materiel support coming across the Atlantic the Allies who were so doggedly holding Germany at bay would not have succeeded.

 

[Empty Hands]

Let's start the critique by defining terms and setting dates. What do you define as US "involvement" and what date do you contend this nation became involved?

First sizable military involvement, which as far as I can tell would be January 26, 1942 when US forces first landed in Europe. There was minor military involvement prior to this point such as engaging U-boats but I don't think that would have a major effect on the war effort of either side. I had considered Lend-Lease and other economic involvement, which I will address below.

Just so it is clear why I am asking... one of my uncles was on the Murmansk run during World War II, the hellish runs through aircraft and U-boats by Western Allied merchant ships to bring war supplies to the Russians.

I greatly respect his sacrifice.

You make a critical error in not factoring in the economic assistance rendered by the US to those fighting the Axis, which commenced well prior to Decemmber 1941.

No, I had indeed factored it in, and I did not and do not consider it essential. Prior to the Lend-Lease program, the only assistance I can see is the "Destroyers for Bases" swap. However, Britain already had a stronger navy than Germany at this point, enough to make the Germans reconsider Operation Sealion later on. Cash-and-Carry, the direct predecessor to Lend-Lease, required the allies to come pick up their own supplies and pay in cash, which came close to bankrupting some of them.

After the US was directly involved in the war, some aspects of Lend-Lease were more important, such as supply rail and truck logistical support to the USSR. However, this occurred after the Germans had already been stalled on both fronts.

After the beginning of Lend-Lease but before direct US involvement in the war, the supplies sold to the allies were much more limited. For instance, it took until late 1941 to even reach an agreement to supply the Russians with limited tanks and planes on a per month basis, after the Germans had already had their advance stalled.

 

[Empty Hands]

Without the financial and materiel support coming across the Atlantic the Allies who were so doggedly holding Germany at bay would not have succeeded.

I have tried to address this point in my comments about Lend-Lease to grydth in the post before this one.

 

[grydth]

I have tried to address this point in my comments about Lend-Lease to grydth in the post before this one.

I am always willing to learn, and value the right to disagree, but I must confess to never having heard such theories.

I know of no historian who believes the strategic initiative had passed to the Russians by December of 1941. Indeed, there was a huge German offensive which began in Summer 1942 and culminated at Stalingrad in February 1943.... and the later battle of Kursk in July 1943 before the German Offensive power was broken in the East. By that time, Allied military assistance had reached very significant levels.

"Stalling" of an offensive is a false measure of a war being won.(by such a measure, the Union was defeated in the Civil War by 1862). One must take the strategic initiative, and be able to conduct offensive operations to finish the enemy off. I do not know how the Russians could conceivably have completed their offensives of 1944 without the economic and military assistance they received.

I know of no historian who has posited that the War in Western Europe could be won without winning the Battle of the Atlantic...... and the tide there was not decisively turned until mid 1943. I know of no historian who has argued the war against the U-boats could have been won without the US Navy and air forces. Do you have some authority on this? Having sufficient forces to prevent a cross channel invasion in a limited area with air superiority is a far different matter from having the number and type of forces needed for an island nation to avoid being starved out by submarines. Surely you recognize the difference?

 

[grydth]

I want to be very clear on the key point - there simply is no historical support for the notion that World War II was over before American involvement. Just simply not accurate.

 

[MBuzzy]

Personal opinion, the US was more than essential in the defeat of Germany. I feel that without the US, Germany probably would not have completed the goal of world domination, but definately would not have been pushed back to their (basically) original borders. The land that they occupied would have mainly stayed as is. Without Patton's offensives in Northern Africa and invasion in Italy, I don't believe that Germany's forces there would have ever been turned back. Montgomery simply did not have the resources or military skill to pull off the victories that Patton and Montgomery combined could have.

But then, I also think that if it wasn't for limited resources, Patton would have rolled into Berlin and continued into Russia.

 

[Xue Sheng]

There was also a bit of a psychological effect involved if I am not mistaken. The Germans all of a sudden saw more man power and greater weapons brought to bear against them such as daylight bombing.

However I am not as up on my history of WW II as I use to be but I do honestly believe that without US involvement that Germany would have been either impossible to beat or much harder and it would have taken much longer and extra time for the Third Rich was good for them and bad for everybody else, if for no other reason their heavy water experiments and they also were pretty advanced in rockets and jets. And as I mentioned the US started daylight bombing which was targeted at German industry making it harder for the Third Rich to produce the superior weapons they had and were working on.

There are a lot of variables to consider here, for instance if we were not in the war would we have been working on a A-bomb, I have no idea but Germany was and if they got it before the war ended, and they were close, who do you think their first target would have been.

The US came in and the war ended and I believe sooner than it would have if they hadn’t and that extra time could have made all the difference in the world.

 

[Big Don]

The fact that American troops did not take Berlin or retake Paris was due to political considerations, not American abilities. The Americans were ready to do both, and each time were stopped, in France, so French troops could lead and in Berlin, so our Russian allies could.
The idea that Europeans had fought Hitler to a stalemate is false. The Battle of Britain was never, imho, intended to be a prelude to a German invasion of the British Isles. The bombing campaign, however, was a way to keep the English busy at home, while German and Italian troops did as they wished in Europe and North Africa.

The chastisement of Germany following WWI is frequently pointed to as a reason for WWII. Well, the US drew it's military back too far after "The War to End All Wars", too, the difference being, we did it voluntarily. Even before we officially entered WWII Roosevelt was sending help in varied forms to our allies in Europe. The speed and size of the American build up during WWII was unprecedented and will remain so.

 

[Empty Hands]

I know of no historian who believes the strategic initiative had passed to the Russians by December of 1941..."Stalling" of an offensive is a false measure of a war being won.

Stalling is not enough on it's own, but the Russians did halt the advance in 1941, and matched the next offensive at least with only modest US economic support. The defeat in 1941 was grievous, and while it was accomplished as much by the German's unpreparedness as Soviet skill, it did halt the advance cold. The Germans never recovered that initiative to use your words, and the Soviets did not really get supplied by the Americans until 1942 and beyond.

 

[Empty Hands]

I want to be very clear on the key point - there simply is no historical support for the notion that World War II was over before American involvement. Just simply not accurate.

That is a strawman, and not what I said at all.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Patton would have kept going until he hit the Pacific if he wasn't held back.

 

[Empty Hands]

The idea that Europeans had fought Hitler to a stalemate is false.

The German advance had been halted in the east by November 1941, and the Battle of Britain was a draw in the west. That is true, and indisputable.

The Battle of Britain was never, imho, intended to be a prelude to a German invasion of the British Isles.

This is simply wrong. The Battle of Britain was an attempt to gain air superiority so that Operation Sealion could go forward, since the superior naval power of the Brits combined with air strength was enough to prevent the crossing of the Channel. Hitler himself said in his order of July 16 1940, that before the invasion was to go forward, the RAF must be "beaten down in its morale and in fact, that it can no longer display any appreciable aggressive force in opposition to the German crossing".

 

[grydth]

The German advance had been halted in the east by November 1941, and the Battle of Britain was a draw in the west. That is true, and indisputable.

ONE German advance had been halted by early December 1941. There followed a Russian Winter Offensive, which, in turn was later savagely mauled by German counter attacks. There followed the major German Summer Offensive.....

How about the Battle of the Atlantic against the U-Boats - was that halted by 1941, too?

Were there no more Axis advances in North Africa after 1941?

 

[grydth]

That is a strawman, and not what I said at all.

I don't need trick or artiface, not with every major military authority on my side. You want to make this a version of house to house...... I'd love to. Keep reading.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Patton would have kept going until he hit the Pacific if he wasn't held back.

Are you sure he would have stopped there... you know those Canadians might have been up to something

 

[Empty Hands]

I don't need trick or artiface, not with every major military authority on my side.

I don't know what you mean by trick, or even military authority. I never said the war was over by the time the US joined in; hence your strawman.

You want to make this a version of house to house...... I'd love to. Keep reading.

What does this even mean? Are you trying to turn this into something personal? You wanted me to defend my views on a 60 year gone war, which I am doing dispassionately. Don't make this any more than an academic exercise.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I'm sorry but I like to throw this into every WW II discussion I get into and I have been trying to resist but I can no longer

Maybe the US made a difference (and I think they did) or maybe they didn't but regardless they were much more effective than impregnable Maginot Line

 

[grydth]

On the eastern front, the early decision to drive south to the oil fields instead of to Moscow, the Russian winter, and the scorched earth tactics and extraordinary sacrifices of the Russian military all insured that the German offensive failed. The failure of the eastern offensive also helped stall the western offensive, and the Russians began rolling back the German military with little direct help. Direct US pressure only accelerated this process as resources were directed to the western front to match the US presence.

Next, this egregiously mistaken asertion. The Germans did NOT abandon the drive on Moscow in 1941 for a drive to the oil fields. The Panzer Corps were turned south, away from Moscow, in Fall of 1941 for the purpose of fighting major battles of encirclement and obtaining the resources of Ukraine. The Germans were successful in these objectives, but returned too late in the campaigning season with too few resources to then take Moscow. The drive south - from Ukraine to the Caucasus oil fields- was not in 1941, but instead Summer 1942.... you know, months after you claim the German advance was "stalled".

The "rolling back" of the German military in fact began after Kursk in Summer 1943. To assert that American assistance was not vital in this.... well, do you have any authority? Have you ever read Carell's volumes? Col Glantz' works? Mitcham? Werth?