Did America win the war for the Allies in WW2?

Originally posted by Panther For my apologies to Husaria for being a off topic, but i feel this either needs to be addressed here, or possibly in another thread...     Best regards, Panther

No problem .

Like i said in a previous post, your sure did pick a difficult position too defend? Anything you add to it will probably lose most of it's perspective and possibly sound like a "what if" in alternative history, instead of the coherent argument that you were looking for?

Hussaria, I think for your essay you should go for something overtly counterfactual (if your teacher says anything about that tell him/her he/she's a moron and this type of researching perfectly accepted for PhD dissertations in the best universities of the world).

Basically, pick a handful of topics and just remove the US from the equation.

I'd say the easiest way to proceed at first is to find basic data such as the UK's tank, ship and aircraft production and the soviet's truck, plane and tank production and to compare them with the US aid program.

If one or more case is significant (say more than 15% is already something), take a key event and just assume US help hadn't been fielded, then try to estimate the result of such a hypothesis. Then build potential scenarios.

For instance El Alamein was a British victory, but how many US-built tanks Monty had?

in the same way, would the red army be able to win at kursk without the us trucks and locomotives?

lastly, the uk were able to survive thanks to the merchant navy, but itself was arguably saved by the us-made liberty ships. so here the question is simple, would the uk be able to hold without the us merchant navy and if the German hadn't lost all the uboots sunk by the Americans?

A second major field of research should be the US's "gravity". They made 1/ the invasion of Europe likely and 2/ the invasion of Siberia by Japan unlikely. What would have happened if the German troops stationed in France, Norway, Belgium, Holland and Italy had gone East while the Russian had to keep part of their forces along the Chinese border?

Another question is that of the loans. I think America did not loan as much money to the UK as it did in WWII but it was well understood that the British could lean on the American. And indeed in 1945 a huge amountof money was lent by the US treasury to his majesty's government. So arguably the US existence avoided a total melt down of the British economy in 42-45.

Finally there is the morale factor. Would the English have thrown the towel hadn't they first expected and then be able to count on their cousins' help? I don't think so (did the German morale break?) but the question deserves to be ask.

Ultimately you can ask: had the Axis been able to allocate the forces and the money devoted to face the US, would they have win the war?

Of course you can't answer yes or no. The answer is somewhere between a very conservative estimate (no not much would have changed) and a very radical one (yes Germany and Japan would have won the war).

You can develop two scenarios:
1. The UK suffer greatly from the lack of US aid but manages not to pull out. The USSR on the other hand is hardly affected and still enters in Berlin in 1945 just a week later compared to reality...
2. The UK are forced to pull out, the forces reallocated on the Eastern front manage to hold the Russian until 1948 when a Nazi Atomic bomb is dropped on a Russian urban center.

The point is you don't have to answer by yes or no. You can  sum up a few things you hold for certain (anything from the battle of Stalingrad still would have been won to the Battle of the Atlantic would have been lost for instance) and conclude by saying that without the US wwii would have been longer and even bloodier. It is also impotant to remark the importance of the US on the diplomatic scene (what if out of hatred for the Brits, the French had opened their empire to the Axis?). Other aspects have to be taken into account such as the US technological input (industrialisation of penicilin, A bomb, etc)

So if I were you (which I am not so feel free to call me an idiot) I go for something like that

1. Assessment of the impact on the war of the US production might

A. Battle of the Atlantic without the US contribution

B. Battle of El Alamein without the US contribution

C. Battle of Kursk without the US contribution

2. Assessment of the impact of the reallocation of Axis forces

A. The Eastern front with more German troops (think in particualr about the Luftwaffe)

B. The Eastern front with less Russian troops

C. Would Britain throw the towel?

3. Did the US win the war?

A. An assessment of the US influence on the war

B. The un-losable war for the USSR (scenario 1)

C. Had Britain failed (scenario 2)


These links may be useful:
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/wwii-campaigns.html
http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html
http://members.aol.com/forcountry/ww2/lus.htm
http://members.aol.com/forcountry/ww2/wc1.htm
http://members.aol.com/forcountry/ww2/tlb.htm
http://members.aol.com/forcountry/ww2/wea.htm
http://members.aol.com/forcountry/ww2/nav.htm
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/28/business/nazi.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease_program
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WW2_aircraft_production
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Atlantic_(1939-1945)#Outcomes

Hello to you all

Britain and Canada would have developed nuclear weapons (the program with the US was a joint one). Germany and the SU wouldn't have done. End of story really.

Originally posted by Al Jassas The first note is about Japan. Japan had no intention whatsoever to attack Russia throughout WWII. The Kuantung army had over 1.5 million men and these guys never saw any action whatsoever till the end of the war when the Manchuria offensive came. Remember, Japan didn't really start to fall and suffer major defeats till 1944 and it had the power to do great harm to Russia till the summer of 43 when practically every available Russian soldier was at the front fighting the Germans. After Kursk Russia had enough men to spare and such attack even if it was initially successfull would have not come till the summer of 44 and by that time Russia was invincible and Japan cornered off. It was the flawed Japanese strategy not American intervention that saved Russia.

Your arguements support my point gcle2003 despite the attempt to dillute them.

Edited by Seko - 20-Oct-2008 at 20:41

Opinions so far are very greatly appreciated, special thanks to Maharbbal for the links and shaping the idea i had with some well organized thoughts.

Hello to you all

Originally posted by Maharbbal A large proporsion of the 8th army's tanks and planes in North Africa were made in USA (for the tanks at the Alamein I think we're talking 75% or more). From Oct '41 to Sept '45, the USSR built ... 19 locomotives. Granted I have no idea how many were still in operation in Oct '41 in the country, but in 1950 the Soviet railway network was 71,000 miles long so the US provided the Russian with a locomotive for every 35.5 miles. To give you an idea a type of locomotive is qualified as common in France when there are 50 of them on the network. 2,000 was huge as far as I can judge (although granted they could potentially all have been sent at the end of the war but the weak Soviet production seems to indicate that it has not been the case).

IIRC in operation Barbarossa the Germans captured about 1,000 Russian locomotives, and certainly much more during the war.

Edited by Chilbudios - 20-Oct-2008 at 23:55