A compelling, highly interesting and informative television series produced entirely by the British, entitled World War II in Color has been running on the Military Channel for the past few weeks. Indisputably, the series is extremely well made and cleverly presented. In this series of programs, the Brits have apparently taken a propagandistic film opportunity to mock, lambast, twist and spin the role of the United States in world war II. According to the series, the United Kingdom won the war single-handedly despite American bungling and stupidity which stymied British efforts. Is this true? I have always been under the distinct impression that American military resources and skills saved the British from being conquered by Axis forces.
It's a very old debate and it will probably never be truly settled to the satisfaction of all concerned for various reasons. However it's a useful tool with which to vent national prejudices.
"And the Soviets." Taxcutter says: If the Japanese had not provoke the US into war at the end of 1941, the Soviets would have been in deep trouble. In 1941, Lend-Lease did not extend to the Soviet Union.
"Germany had no hope in hell of ever invading the UK." Taxcutter says: Indeed so, but likewise without the US the UK had no hope in hell of invading the Continent. Neither side could really get at the other. The war could have gone on for a decade if left to just the UK and Third Reich.
As a few others have mentioned. GB was in pretty good shape to repel any serious invasion, and Germany really didn't have the resources to pull it off. I can understand the British perspective on the conduct of the war. The two nations had very differing base plans for how to fight the Germans. As it turned out both were right in their own way. The British were very conscious of casualties and this lead to cautious planning. American commanders felt they could best limit casualties by hitting the Germans hard and then keep them off balance and unable to build an effective defense. So the Americans thought the British were being old women The British thought the Americans were all cowboys who would eventually get their backside shot off lol
"The British were very conscious of casualties and this lead to cautious planning." Taxcutter says: As well they might be after beating they took in Flanders 1914-1918 and Gallipoli. The Great War totally demoralized the UK. Economic lethargy in the 20s and the Great Depression only made it worse.
Great points I was about to make myself. England took a solid thrashing from The Great War, with the end of the Edwardian Era, and essentially the loss of an entire generation. This can be seen even decades later, in the attempts to get "Peace at any cost" with Hitler prior to the start of WWII. In many ways, the positions of England and Japan in WWII were similar, in which neither could be taken by land without horrible losses. As for winning the war, it all depends on your definition of what a "win" is. Could the UK defeat Germany without US support? I do not think so, they simply did not have the assets available to do it with what they had before the US entered the war. The sheer flood of manpower and material the US provided here was a game-changer on the Western Front. Here it becomes hard to predict. The Soviets would not have been mollified, and they would have continued to push West. I could still see Eastern Europe falling to the Soviets, but would they have wanted to extend themselves as far as Berlin without assistance from the West? That, I am not so sure. More then likely they would have simply gobbled up everything East of Germany, and called a halt there with an armistice (not unlike the one between North and South Korea) while they absorbed their new territories and regained their strength. Eventually another round of fighting would have broken out, but not right away. However, the other half of the war was a different matter. The US largely won the War in the Pacific on it's own, and without US involvement the UK would never have regained their lost territory there. Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, those all would have remained in Japanese hands without the US, and possibly even Burma and part of India. England tends to be very Eurocentric when it comes to World War II, often forgetting that there was another theatre which they were only really involved in because of other parts of the Commonwealth (Australia, New Zealand, etc). If not for Aus-NZ-HK, I doubt that most people in England would remember that there was a Pacific Theatre at all (other then a bridge in a David Lean movie).
Well yes you are correct, we learn basically nothing about the Indian Ocean theatre in school and all the TV stuff is about Europe, unless you watch as I did the series like The World At War. There is loads about the North Africa Campaign, Matla and the Battle of Britain, with all those great Churchill speeches. There is some talking about Singapore and how bad it war, but that is about it. People also bang on about William Slim and how great a jungle General he was. Oh and sinking the Bismarck, along with the code breaking stuff. Basically a load of rubbish with a healthy taste of anti-Americanism and no credit for Canada or the rest of the Commonwealth. Also you will not forget the post WW1 the UK gave up Ireland and created the Commonwealth. So it wasn't in the same stratically strong position as WW1 with the Navy being a shadow of it's former self. I also hold the view that Chamberlain was buying time to re-arm and hoping Hilter wouldn't go to war. I will blame George, MacDonald and Baldwin for WW2, not Chamberlain. Re-arming should have started no later than 1932 under Churchill's 10 year plan.
Actually the main failure of WW1 was the inability of Grand Fleet or destroy the German High Sea Fleet at Jutland, if that has been another Trafalgar or Nile than what happened on Land wouldn't have been as bad. WW1 basically destroyed moral and belief, not only in the Royal Navy or the Empire, but the state religion. WW1 destroyed 200 years have hard work.
If you notice, I did not mention Neville at all. The "Peace at any price" was a common British opinion prior to the actual outbreak of war. In fact, I bet that most of those in England hoped up until the Invasion of France and Dunkirk that some kind of reproachment with Germany was possible. But once France was invaded and the UK forces had to leave the continent in anything that could float, that was never going to happen. Not to dissimilar to US views at the time. The majority of the US wanted absolutely nothing to do with the "War in Europe", until Pearl Harbor. From that moment on there was no solution other then total victory.
Oh I think the crossing point was when Germany was stupid enough to declare war against the U.S.- up until then, there was a reasonable chance that we would have gone all guns blazing at Japan, even though FDR considered Hitler a bigger threat.
No the crossing point was the Germany fighting a two front war. Let me ask you this, which is the most important alliance in Europe? France-Germany? Germany-Russia? Russia-France? Britain-Germany? Britain-France? Britain-Russia? Britain and Russia for any other European power is like being between British Navy rock and Russian hard place. In military terms this alliance has never been defeated, 3 times the French and Germans have tryed. So the mistake for Germany creating that alliance again. It also works very well because neither country threatens the other.
Another thread topic, but yea. If Germany had not declared war against the US, I think you still would have seen an increase in support to the UK, with the claim that the aid was to be used against Japan (*wink* *wink*). Myself, I do not think that England was ever in serious threat of invasion, Germany simply lacked the kind of amphibious assets needed. However, the US entering the Strategic Bombing of Germany unquestionably had a major impact upon their industrial capacity. With the UK bombing at night and US bombing at day, Germany was constantly under attack upon their industrial centers.
The fact is, the "two front war" essentially ended with the fall of France. At that point, all land combat to the West was over and done with. Bombers could attack, but could not take land. And England by itself lacked the amphibious assets to push back into Europe, just as Germany lacked them to push out of Europe. Until the US entered into the war, Germany was only really fighting on 1 front.
I haven't seen the series to which you refer, but it is very possible it has been produced with a certain pro-British bias. Every nation portrays its own history in a somewhat flattering light. Except the United States, of course. Why would I claim that, for my entire life, I have been subjected to American propaganda about every conflict in which that nation has been involved? It is not as if Hollywood would portray the American military as conquering, but magnamimous, heroes, and never make reference to matters like My Lai, is it? It is not as though American literature, or what passes for American history, would do the same. You are so lucky to live in a society, devoid of nationalistic bias, and possessed of brutal honesty in the process of self-examination!
You must have a very limited experience of Hollywood movies then. I can think of tons of them that portray the US in a less then positive light. And one of them jumps immediately to mind: [video=youtube;dZLlt3Vl3Zc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZLlt3Vl3Zc[/video] Of course, you may have also spoken in sarcasm, and if so this should make it obvious that Hollywood is most certainly not always the friend of the military.
So you had Germany trying to take on the most powerful navy and army in Europe? It wasn't going to win. The British wouldn't have invaded Europe across the channel, they don't do that unless they have an friendly country be it France or Holland. The Invasion would have come from the Mediterranean which was less well defended. Of course it never got that far because thankfully in US entered the war. The same thing happened before with the Napoleonic wars, we sent an army in to North Europe, it was crushed and ineffective like Dunkirk. Soon after the British changed strategy.
There were a lot of steps between the two. And the point is that England was very lacking in amphibious assets. Not to the extent that Germany was, but still lacking. It took the combined assets of both the US and UK to make serious assaults into Europe. Without the US, I think the war in Europe would have been a stalemate. Neither side winning, neither side loosing.
Yeah with both agree. On the war against Japan, did they have the assets to fight a war in India and China and Australia at the same time? The Royal Navy couldn't have done much to help Australia. So I guess it would have been taken. Also do you know if Japan could have invaded mainland Africa?
Very different tactical situation. In most of their area of the Western Pacific, Japan was totally dominant and had multiple ports on the mainland. They had roads and railroads as well as friendly air bases to use to ship men and material from one part of China to another. This is something that England was completely lacking in Europe once France fell. I do not think Japan could have taken Australia, and I do not think they ever seriously considered it. Their strategy towards Australia was more containment, to keep them bottled up and interfering with the rest of their Empire, as well as making it to treacherous to use as a major launching point against their Empire. One of the reasons the US did it's island hopping campaign was because of the strong presence of Japanese forces north of Australia. And any hopes Japan ever had of actually attacking Australia directly died in the Battle of the Coral Sea.
