USA won World War Two and saved England ?

Alternately on ecould argue that the British Empire was at the very least badly damaged by the war and the US showed little inclination to prop it up. My position is somewhere in between.

I find a well constructed what if a valuable learning tool and thus hardly a waste.

 

And if it had Stalin and not Churchill could have used them. But only those from England, Wales and Scotland could be conscripted - the rest were volunteers.

 

Really? And yet you take the time to thread-crap?

 

Nearly completely disagree with the opening thread, by late 1941 the Germans had overextended themselves and were on very slippery ground, without US intervention the war would probably have dragged on longer but German military power had peaked (war production would peak in 1944). So the British and Soviets had already saved themselves by Pearl Harbor. The critical "sign" was the cut in the infantry divisions from 9 to 6 battalions, from then on they became basically defensive units with operational level offensive capabilities limited to the much smaller mechanized forces that could never make a Barbarossa sized offensive again by themselves. Case Blue was made possible by stripping the units in AGC and AGN of armour to reinforce AGS.

The submarine campaign and naval battles broke the back of Japan's capability to wage offensive warfare, but the contribution of the Commonwealth and Chinese to the war is usually grossly underestimated, the vast majority of the Imperial Japanese Army was in China, substantial forces were in Burma, and in the island campaign the US only faced a very small percentage of it.
I don't know if the Soviets could have gotten to Berlin without US aid, but they not western allied troops eventually got there, a western style army would probably have suffered less massive losses, but still on a scale that would make continued support in a democracy for the war doubtful.

There are many "pointers" but no conclusive evidence that the US strategy included the dissolution of the British empire (and the other European ones as well).

IMO the real winners of WW2 are the Chinese and Indians that got rid of colonialism and started the rise to superpower status, the USSR moved from "pariah" to superpower but broke under internal contraddictions, Europe continued it's decline though the EEC gives some hope still, the US went to dominate world economy and then ..... the question is still open on that.

 

Frankly India was already on route to independence and self goverment in 1930'ies. Uncooperative attitude of National Congress with Raj and popularity of Gandhi's passive resistance movement already opened up talks between British Viceroy , London and Congress and real progress was done until 1939. Sucessive British goverments began to realize governing and ruling subcontinent was more trouble than its worth and in light of Great Depression was not profitable anymore. Tories and Churchill opposed to quitting subcontinent and idea of self governing India of course but they were isolated.

War and economic bankrupcy of Britain just accelerated Indian Indepencence process. British goverment promised a definite date to leave subcontinent for Indian involvement and participation to war effort. Once they did that they couldn't break it. Without war British rule would maybe end 10-20 years later but bound to end anyway no matter what.

As for China it depends from different perspectives whether they were winners. Japanese occupation , brutality and massacares ended of course. But then they were plunged into a bloody civil way in which Communists triumphed (give the credit due Mao and Communists were more determined , dedicated and played smarter than Chang Hai Shek's Militarist Nationalists ) Their opening up to rest of world occured after 1980'ies after Mao and Chinese Communist Party Old Guard from his era passed away.

 

The Chinese Communist Party learned from Soviet mistakes in 1989. No "openness" there, thank you very much. Tianamen Square made that readily apparent.

 

Weird thing is US perception how they saved Great Britain or "without US you would be speaking German" cliche. If British people said this quote in any place Europe it would actually weigh more truth. Without UK constantly at war against Third Reich entire Western and probably Eastern Europe would either be under Nazi dictatorship in which Germans were herrenvolk or a Communist sattalite union after (or if) they were liberated by Red Army. Of couse Britain entered and stayed at war against Axis because of its national security and interests (no dominant military power in Europe principle) not because of moral or alturistic reasons. Still after 1940 summer British goverment could sue for peace any time , accepting Nazi hegamony in Europe , picking up Hitler's idea for an alliance against Soviet Russia in sake of illusion of extending Empire's life (that Empire was already going down though despite all toils of Churchill and other Victorian statesmen. It is their credit that they did not cling it in bitter colonial strifes , wars , civil conflicts etc )

Still I do not hear any British boasting to Europe "we saved you otherwise you will be speaking German"

Without UK , USA would not even enter war or even consider conflict with dominant Nazi Germany basicly conquerer of Europe. If Great Britain picked up Hitler's peace offer (vague and valueless it was) in 1940 , USA would be isolated at other side of Atlantic , considered Europe as a lost cause , turned Far East and Pacific and turn inward isolanism to strengthen its own defences and armed forces. Existence of Great Britain and its armed forces provided United Nations (US and Britain) a suitable platform to wage war against Axis states in Europe. British Isles were perfect platform to open Second Front on Europe and wage Strategic Bombing Campaign. British Commonwealth Theaters of War and their logistical infrastructure in Mediterranean / Middle East provided perfect live actual training experience for US Armed Forces , created new pipelines for supply to Soviet Union , dispersed , distributed and weakened Axis military power considerably. Without British Commonwealth contribution US might have found much harder to fight both in Pacific , Mediterranean and Europe. Their resorces would be divided and they would prefer to go after Japan since it directly challanged to USA by attacking Pearl Harbour.

 

In 1946 I ended my overseas service at Trieste in the extreme North of Italy.

My unit was stationed at Opicina on the hills overlooking the city on the extreme borders of what was then Yugoslavia and in the evening, rather than use the funicular tram to take us down into Trieste we used the local bars to have a drink and a chat.

The civvies who used the same bars included in their midst a few agent provacateurs who used to deliberately make anti-British statements in a desire to foment trouble between the local civilians and the British peace-keeping troops.

Without wishing to read any false motives into the original reason for starting this thread I don't think that the thread title really does anything for Anglo American relations and I am once again reminded of the chaps in the bars.

Having said all that, if I was pushed to answer the original question I would have to register my relief when the USA joined the fiight against the powers of darkness and yes, they undoubtedly helped to save England.

Ron

 

Could that be in part because in many places in Europe they do (at least as a second language)?
I'm not at all sure how prevelant that opinion is in the US by the way. Certainly some have it but how many?

 

You really should go France or Italy. Even if they knew a little German they do not speak it over there.

 

I'm always amused by the fact that after decades of claiming the war started on 7/12/1941, some US academics are now claiming it supposedly started in China in 1937.
In which case it took them even flamin' longer to get involved and "save " us...(that was humour, before anyone takes offence).

 

I always thought it strange that the war started in 1939 and not 1937. Racism?

 

More over it sounds like interpetation of history due to Cold War politics. China became Communist right after the war and fought against US and UN in Korea and isolated itself until 1970-80 era. Combined with the fact that defeat of Japan seemed national pride issue for many Americans due to Pearl Harbor it might be considered normal for them ignoring China's partitipation in WW2.

 

I imagine if you asked a Pole he/she would say Sept. 1, 1939. A Russian, June 22, 1941 and so on. For Americans of that generation, unmistakably it is Dec. 7th, 1941.

It is our (the people of this generation) privilege to take a wider view.

 

Given that the Sino-Japanese "war" in China was undeclared until December 9, 1941, at which time the Chinese formally declared war on the Empire of Japan, it would be hard to establish that World War II began in 1937, not to mention that the Second Sino-Japanese War was a "local" incident. But, if one wanted, they could probably make a case that World War II began in 1935, with the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, or 1931 with the Sino-Japanese "Mukdwn Incident."

 

The Italian invasion of Ethiopia broke the traditional Italo-British friendship, but was basically a colonial dispute. If you want something earlier than 1/9/1939 the Spanish civil war is a good candidate though it was mostly "ww2 by proxy" it included Italian, German and Soviet troops and volunteers from the future western allies (the socialist French government didn't openly support the republicans to avoid internal repercussions).

 

I stll think 1937. The amount of troops and areas in conflict between Japan and China after the Marco Polo bridge incident was quite large and all out.

The problem with the Spanish civil war is that it ended.

 

Need to disagree, since even the Chinese and Japanese usually term it "The War against the Japanese", "The Second Sino-Japanese War" or the "Japan-China War".

 

Yes, now they refer to it in those terms, but back then, the Japanese at least called it an "incident" - IIRC, first it was the Northern China Incident, and as the war quickly spread, it became The China Incident. AFAIK, the only faction to call it a war back then, was Mao's Chinese Communists - To them, it was, and always has been, the "War of Resistance Against Japan".

 

The argument for 1937 over 1935 or 1931 is that there was continuos fighting from 1937 through the end of the war. The other two you mention had outbreaks of peace. If you are going to allow that why not just consider WWII the second half of WWI?

Personally I think one can make a reasonable argument for 1937, 1939, or 1941 all depending on what criteria you want to use to define the war. By the same token one can make pretty decent arguments against each of those dates.