World War 2 Question

I was speaking to an American friend of mine recently and we were having a debate about WW2. He claims that the Americans could have defeated Nazi, Germany without the help of Britain.

His logic is that the Americans would of established a foothold in ... Morocco and fought across the Mediterrean and up Italy. According to him the British weren't really needed and were really only there for support. Of course its an ignorant statement but what do you think?

BS.

wither people like it or not, defeating the axis was a team effort.

If the Americans didn't have a Pacific front, sure, they could have taken down Germany, no problem.

However, it wasn't one country versus another. It was multiple versus multiple.

That's exactly what I said. The Allies all needed each other to bring down the Nazis because, in hall honesty, Germany was extremely powerful. But he refused to understand this, and still claims that America could have defeated them alone.

I asked him how the Americans would setup reliable supply lines without any aid whatsoever and he said it would be simple to do so with a foothold in Morocco. I don't think he realises the extent of Germany's U-Boat operations.

I don't think it's that simplistic. If there was no threat from mainland Britain then France would never have been fortified to the extent that it was...Elsewhere would have been and all the troops and armour that were into defending the French coast would have also been deployed elsewhere.

You would have to effectively have the same armada as on D-day but travel across the entire Atlantic ocean...There would have been no air support or paratrooper drops who were essential in taking out 88 batteries that would be used against landing craft.

The battle of the Atlantic would also have never been fought and won because there would be no need as the point of it was to allow supplies, men and weapons to the UK for the staging of the invasion on D-day...What this means is that the U-boat fleet would still have been fully operational and would have decimated any fleet sailing for Morocco to stage an invasion there.

Too many factors in the equation.

Now if the US forces went alone and did it from the same staging point in the UK and attacked Normandy but without any British troops at all then yes...They could do it. But doing it straight from US soil?...Doubtful.

But even at Normandy with British support, without any forward radio disruption or the mastermind of some of the British Intelligence, it would have been a lot more difficult and bloody. And again, the Luftwaffe would also be at pretty strong operation strength because the Battle of Britain wouldn't have decimated there ranks.

Its rather annoying for someone to think their nation could have taken on the Nazis by themselves and won alone, it's almost calling the other Allies as dying in vain now isn't it.

By the time the Americans were involved, the Eastern front was of far more importance

Neither GB or USA could have won without the USSR, though it is debateable if the reverse is true (though, Hitler did nearly win that war)

Like Jaden said, the Western front would have been radically different, I'm just of the opinion that the Western front was of less importance (though all things are inter related)

Hmm an interesting point. True, the Soviets really took a large portion of the German threat off of the Western Front, and a lot of the more elite forces of the Nazis were poised at the EF.

His logic was that the Soviets would still have broken through as they did, and the US would have launched the 'second front' from the south, Italy, into europe across the Mediterrean that way and linking up with the Soviets.

Originally posted by Liberator
But even at Normandy with British support, without any forward radio disruption or the mastermind of some of the British Intelligence, it would have been a lot more difficult and bloody. And again, the Luftwaffe would also be at pretty strong operation strength because the Battle of Britain wouldn't have decimated there ranks.

Its rather annoying for someone to think their nation could have taken on the Nazis by themselves and won alone, it's almost calling the other Allies as dying in vain now isn't it.

Good points...Hadn't factored in the Battle of Britain and the air superiority importance (I guess without the Spitfire's hard work in the previous years then D-Day would have been a huge disaster)

If Germany hadn´t had attacked Russia (especially in the winter) they would have won the European battle, even with the US on board. Ok Britain wouldn´t have been taken with it being an Island and its marine fleet. What would have happened after that is anyone´s guess, atom bomb on Berlin?

War is a chaotic thing, anything can happen so any "if´s" are difficult to determine.

And the Russian losses and input into the victory is vastly underrated in the west imo.

Originally posted by Bicnarok

And the Russian losses and input into the victory is vastly underrated in the west imo.

I wouldn't say their loses are understated in the west. They lost some 20 times the number of people that the US and UK combined (inclusive of civilian deaths)

Now China, on the other hand, really is understated in the west...They lost the same number as Russia (over 20,000,000) and yet there is very little recognition of what they suffered at the Japanese.

Have a look for what Unit 731 did to people to see that the Japanese were every bit as sick as the likes of Josef Mengle.

Originally posted by jaden101
I wouldn't say their loses are understated in the west. They lost some 20 times the number of people that the US and UK combined (inclusive of civilian deaths)

Now China, on the other hand, really is understated in the west...They lost the same number as Russia (over 20,000,000) and yet there is very little recognition of what they suffered at the Japanese.

Have a look for what Unit 731 did to people to see that the Japanese were every bit as sick as the likes of Josef Mengle.

you know jaden there is definitely some truth to that. TBH now i think about it china was only mentioned maybe two times in my hsitory classes when WW2 is discussed.

i feel compelled to hit up google now.

Originally posted by Liberator
I was speaking to an American friend of mine recently and we were having a debate about WW2. He claims that the Americans could have defeated Nazi, Germany without the help of Britain.

His logic is that the Americans would of established a foothold in ... Morocco and fought across the Mediterrean and up Italy. According to him the British weren't really needed and were really only there for support. Of course its an ignorant statement but what do you think?

Well, I've said in the past the British Navy at full power would have beaten the Japs back to Tokyo in the Pacific. An invasion to America by the Nazis would have been a bad idea.

Its a moot point seeing as America and England never took on the full might of the German military. Most of the German military was posted on the Eastern Front and the Western Front was treated by the Germans as something of a sideshow all the way till the end. Could America have won a war against Germany by itself? Yes, eventually. The war probably would have continued on into the 1950's, and that's assuming its just Germany and not Japan and Italy as well. England's involvement was invaluable not only for its status as the 'Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier' but also for its troops and commanders who did more than their fair share at every step of the way and its airforce which bled the Luftwaffe and blunted any hopes of a German occupation of England.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Well, I've said in the past the British Navy at full power would have beaten the Japs back to Tokyo in the Pacific. An invasion to America by the Nazis would have been a bad idea.

Originally posted by jaden101
I wouldn't say their loses are understated in the west. They lost some 20 times the number of people that the US and UK combined (inclusive of civilian deaths)

Now China, on the other hand, really is understated in the west...They lost the same number as Russia (over 20,000,000) and yet there is very little recognition of what they suffered at the Japanese.

Have a look for what Unit 731 did to people to see that the Japanese were every bit as sick as the likes of Josef Mengle.

Pure US vs Germany, is very hard to gauge. Most of the fighting the US did was in the pacific which was a whole different animal. Both Germany and the US would have trouble making much of an offense with the atlantic between them.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Pure US vs Germany, is very hard to gauge. Most of the fighting the US did was in the pacific which was a whole different animal. Both Germany and the US would have trouble making much of an offense with the atlantic between them.

I think Nazi Germany would have eventually won if it was one on one between USA and them. I think they had more soldiers, in a few years their tech was going to be upgraded (I think they were close to making the A Bomb, can't recall though. If both they and the USA made it around the same time, it would have developed into a Cold War), but yeah, the Atlantic would be difficult.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
I think Nazi Germany would have eventually won if it was one on one between USA and them. I think they had more soldiers, in a few years their tech was going to be upgraded (I think they were close to making the A Bomb, can't recall though. If both they and the USA made it around the same time, it would have developed into a Cold War), but yeah, the Atlantic would be difficult.

The bomb program in Germany was very rudimentary. And the US's population was way larger so I don't see how you can say Germany had more resources to call upon.