How would US invade Europe without UK

[alecsandros]

Karl: and how about the thousands of tons of equipment, food, raw materials, coming from the USA, without which the reds would have been wiped out by the Germans ?

[Karl Heidenreich]

Alex:

Karl: and how about the thousands of tons of equipment, food, raw materials, coming from the USA, without which the reds would have been wiped out by the Germans ?

Of course the lend lease actions, imposed by FDR's communist aide, Harry Hopkins, played a major role in favor of the soviets. We are not only talking food or raw materials for them to build the T-34 but they got jeeps, US made tanks (called by the soviets as the Coffin for Five Brothers) and aircraft for Hartman and his pilots to shoot down. Alex: this is prove enough of the favoritism that later sunk the world in more than forty five years of Cold War, enslaved entire countries as Poland and your Romania, killed millions in Corea, Vietnam, Angola, Nicaragua and El Salvador and threat my own country.

But, again, in the premise of this thread the US would have been unable to invade nothing if the British were gone. The soviets will have never allowed US troops in their ground, ever... let's remember the Russian Civil War and how the Reds were threatened by the Whites that included US troops.

[lwd]

This is really pushing it Karl.

Of course the lend lease actions, imposed by FDR's communist aide, Harry Hopkins, played a major role in favor of the soviets.

I would like to see where it list Hopkins as an "aid" an official postion I beleive. But that's rather nit picking he was indeed a very trusted advisor of FDR. However it's not at all clear that he was a communist indeed from what I've read he wasn't. I will agree that lend lease was quite important to them though so you got something right.

We are not only talking food or raw materials for them to build the T-34 but they got jeeps, US made tanks (called by the soviets as the Coffin for Five Brothers) and aircraft for Hartman and his pilots to shoot down.

Wow gratuitious shots at US equipment and praise for your heros. Of course there was a lot more as well. But as for the "coffin for five brothers" I've also seen post indicating that the Soviets nickname for just about any tank was "coffin for x brothers" where x was the crew size. Given the number of Soviet tanks lost and the significantly higher fatality rates among crew of KO'd tanks the name is perhaps not unreasonable. The planes of course did a lot more than serve as targets for your favorite German aces.

Alex: this is prove enough of the favoritism t

Is it? I don't t hink so. Especially when you consider facts such as the following listed at http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php ... d=10005679

The largest lend-lease recipients were Great Britain ($31 billion) and the Soviet Union ($11 billion).

Of course LL did show favortise to the allies who need equipement over the axis powers but that was kind of the point was it not.

But, again, in the premise of this thread the US would have been unable to invade nothing if the British were gone.

That's rather a rather strange statement. "unable to invade nothing" implies the ability to invade at least something which may or may not have been what you meant. However the premise of this thread was not that the US couldn't but could they and if so how. If the US get's into the war there are options but all of them take more time and effort than the historical ones.

The soviets will have never allowed US troops in their ground, ever... let's remember the Russian Civil War and how the Reds were threatened by the Whites that included US troops.

Even remembering that I don't see that yoru statement holds up. Indeed there were US troops on the ground in the USSR during the war.

[Karl Heidenreich]

lwd:

I would like to see where it list Hopkins as an "aid" an official postion I beleive. But that's rather nit picking he was indeed a very trusted advisor of FDR.

Smokescreen: being an aide, a close friend, advisor do not change the fact that Hopkins was the Stalin's advocate in FDR's court.

Wow gratuitious shots at US equipment and praise for your heros. Of course there was a lot more as well. But as for the "coffin for five brothers" I've also seen post indicating that the Soviets nickname for just about any tank was "coffin for x brothers" where x was the crew size. Given the number of Soviet tanks lost and the significantly higher fatality rates among crew of KO'd tanks the name is perhaps not unreasonable. The planes of course did a lot more than serve as targets for your favorite German aces.

Well, an Aircobra was hardly a match for a FW or Me at the hands of a Hartman or a Barkhorn or a Rall, despite the fact that, at least, the soviets got an Ace of Ivan Kozhedub with 62 kills (22 more than Bong). On the tanks the soviets were well aware that their own T32 was far superir than the coffins sent to them by the western allies. The term I first read it from Glantz' book on Kursk, however the terminology of Rosom I knew for long before.
But the problem here, which is one many Americans commit, is that they put the blame on a notion of soviet incompetence

... Given the number of Soviet tanks lost and the significantly higher fatality rates among crew of KO'd tanks the name is perhaps not unreasonable...

Incompetence that we could easily identify from June 1941 to sometime in the Spring of 1943, but that was more than superated by July 1943. As Marshall Vasilesvky put it: the western allies would have not endured half of the nazi forces they (the soviets) dealth in the Summer of 1943.

Is it? I don't t hink so. Especially when you consider facts such as the following listed at http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php ... d=10005679
The largest lend-lease recipients were Great Britain ($31 billion) and the Soviet Union ($11 billion).
Of course LL did show favortise to the allies who need equipement over the axis powers but that was kind of the point was it not.

That is one measure, indeed, but historically is not the important one: after the surrender of the German forces how many territory do the British ($31 billion recipients) hold at their grasp and how many the Soviets ($11 billion). It is clear that the jackpot was in soviet hands: Lituania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Prussia, Checoslovakia, Bulgary, Romania, Hungary, East Germany were solidly in Soviet hands because the sole possessors of the Atomic Bomb, with whole fleets of B-17 and B-29 and with whole armies in Europe (5.4 million men) let them do it. All those countries (plus Ukraine, Bielorussia, Georgia etc. etc.) were left under soviet dictartorship as satelites of soviet's will because FDR so wanted. FDR so signed treaty after treaty to let Stalin enslave the world after the nazis. Do you think that Ike or Bradley wouldn't want to be the first at Berlin: who stopped them?

That's rather a rather strange statement. "unable to invade nothing" implies the ability to invade at least something which may or may not have been what you meant. However the premise of this thread was not that the US couldn't but could they and if so how. If the US get's into the war there are options but all of them take more time and effort than the historical ones.

As usual you like to play with words in order to avoid the problem at hand. No wonder people like Terje decided to run away from a forum with such bullying attitude. You know very well what I am talking about. If you want we can hire a kindergarten teacher to explain the meaning of ilustrative sentences. When saying they could not "invade nothing", of course, I meant no place of the Nazi Sphere of Influence after the British were defeated: no coast of Europe, no coast of Africa (west nor east). Many forum members have explain why in this thread, so I would not bother to reiterate.

Even remembering that I don't see that yoru statement holds up. Indeed there were US troops on the ground in the USSR during the war

Again: rethorical tricks. Haven't you learned something here? Too stop wasting time and going to the point. The soviets even denied permision in most or almost all the ocassions requested for US bombers to land and refuel in areas of their control. I do not see Stalin letting Patton or Chesty Puller fight at Kursk, we will have negotiated first with Hitler.

Obviously a new session of dissections of sentences, taking them out of context, will be done by the love of argumenting and in order to show to everybody that the last word has not been said until he says it. But at least this serves as proof that reiterations only came because of external influence, not because it is I that wants to do it.

[lwd]

lwd:

I would like to see where it list Hopkins as an "aid" an official postion I beleive. But that's rather nit picking he was indeed a very trusted advisor of FDR.

Smokescreen: being an aide, a close friend, advisor do not change the fact that Hopkins was the Stalin's advocate in FDR's court.

Not from what I've read. Care to provide some sources?

Well, an Aircobra was hardly a match for a FW or Me at the hands of a Hartman or a Barkhorn or a Rall, despite the fact that, at least, the soviets got an Ace of Ivan Kozhedub with 62 kills (22 more than Bong).

Yet the Soviets thought very well of it. Indeed many Soviet aces flew it from what I recall reading. We also sent them P-47 and P-38 which they didn't care for as I recall. (gratuitous provocation ignored)

On the tanks the soviets were well aware that their own T32 was far superir than the coffins sent to them by the western allies.

I assume you meant T-34's and this seems not to be the case. Indeed they seem to have thought quite well of the Sherman and as I recall several of the other tanks sent them by the west.

The term I first read it from Glantz' book on Kursk, however the terminology of Rosom I knew for long before.

I'd heard the term used long before that but I think in relation to the M-3 mediums but like I said it's also been reported that they used it for their own tanks. As for the term Ronson that apparently has very minimal documentation during the war.

But the problem here, which is one many Americans commit, is that they put the blame on a notion of soviet incompetence

... Given the number of Soviet tanks lost and the significantly higher fatality rates among crew of KO'd tanks the name is perhaps not unreasonable...

Incompetence that we could easily identify from June 1941 to sometime in the Spring of 1943, but that was more than superated by July 1943. As Marshall Vasilesvky put it: the western allies would have not endured half of the nazi forces they (the soviets) dealth in the Summer of 1943.

No the problem here is you reading in things that aren't there. There is no question that the Soviets lost more tanks than anyone esle in WWII. Like I said there were also objective studies that showed the Soviets lost a higher percentage of crew when a tank was destroyed. That doesn't necessarily mean that they were incompetent. For instance one of the factors in the higher loss per KO'd tank may have been a greater willingness to stay and fight a crippled tank than others. As for overall losses the Soviets lost huge numbers of older tanks in the disasters of 41 when they went on the offensive it was often in good tank country vs very lethal German defenders. Indeed I think I've read that the average range at which tanks were engaged by other tanks and AT guns was several hundred yards more in the East than it was in the West. Vasilesvky's statement appears to be mere trash talking to me as it leaves out so many factors as to be useless.

Is it? I don't think so. Especially when you consider facts such as the following listed at http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php ... d=10005679
The largest lend-lease recipients were Great Britain ($31 billion) and the Soviet Union ($11 billion).
Of course LL did show favoritism to the allies who need equipment over the axis powers but that was kind of the point was it not.

That is one measure, indeed, but historically is not the important one: after the surrender of the German forces how many territory do the British ($31 billion recipients) hold at their grasp and how many the Soviets ($11 billion).

I thought you were talking about helping the Soviets in WWII in which case it is indeed the most important. But from the following:

It is clear that the jackpot was in soviet hands: Lituania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Prussia, Checoslovakia, Bulgary, Romania, Hungary, East Germany were solidly in Soviet hands because the sole possessors of the Atomic Bomb, with whole fleets of B-17 and B-29 and with whole armies in Europe (5.4 million men) let them do it. All those countries (plus Ukraine, Bielorussia, Georgia etc. etc.) were left under soviet dictartorship as satelites of soviet's will because FDR so wanted. FDR so signed treaty after treaty to let Stalin enslave the world after the nazis. Do you think that Ike or Bradley wouldn't want to be the first at Berlin: who stopped them?

It's apparent that you are talking post war. Well just how do you think we could have pushed the Soviets out of Eastern Europe and at what cost? As for Berlin indeed the western allies could probably have beaten the Soviets there but I believe it was Ike's call not to do so. In particular because he didn't see the need to loose soldiers doing so. As for FDR wanting to leave them in Soviet hands that seems unlikely from what I"ve read of him and indeed he was coming round to Churchill's opinion of the Soviets by the end of the war from what I've read but he was also quite sick by that point.

That's rather a rather strange statement. "unable to invade nothing" implies the ability to invade at least something which may or may not have been what you meant. However the premise of this thread was not that the US couldn't but could they and if so how. If the US get's into the war there are options but all of them take more time and effort than the historical ones.

As usual you like to play with words in order to avoid the problem at hand. No wonder people like Terje decided to run away from a forum with such bullying attitude. You know very well what I am talking about. If you want we can hire a kindergarten teacher to explain the meaning of ilustrative sentences. When saying they could not "invade nothing", of course, I meant no place of the Nazi Sphere of Influence after the British were defeated: no coast of Europe, no coast of Africa (west nor east). Many forum members have explain why in this thread, so I would not bother to reiterate.

Did I not acknowledge your probable meaning which you have confirmed. I also think it incorrect. It's difficult to get into particulars because the situation is so poorly defined but I certainly so no reason the US couldn't invade Africa. Indeed they could probably find several locations to land without launching an amphibious invasion.

Even remembering that I don't see that your statement holds up. Indeed there were US troops on the ground in the USSR during the war

Again: rethorical tricks. Haven't you learned something here? Too stop wasting time and going to the point. The soviets even denied permision in most or almost all the ocassions requested for US bombers to land and refuel in areas of their control. I do not see Stalin letting Patton or Chesty Puller fight at Kursk, we will have negotiated first with Hitler.

Clearly they didn't in all cases though did they. The famous shuttle bombing missions come to mind. If they are under even more pressure than the historical case which they would be here I see them as welcoming more US troops. They would probably have tried to keep the US troops as isolated as possible but that's another matter.

Obviously a new session of dissections of sentences, taking them out of context, will be done by the love of argumenting and in order to show to everybody that the last word has not been said until he says it. But at least this serves as proof that reiterations only came because of external influence, not because it is I that wants to do it.

I don't take the sentences out of context I break them up so it's clear exactly what the context of my reply is. I think it's cleaner and clearer this way. You don't. Convince me and I'll change. As it is I have a hard time seeing the whole as having much value if it's parts are riddled with inaccuracies and logical flaws.

[Karl Heidenreich]

lwd:

Aside from trying to say the last word and avoiding the humps of the argument, is it there something you want to say or is just the fun to waste bites for the forum?

[lwd]

Still using your new found mantra of "lwd is trying to have the last word" I see, oh well.
I thought it quite obvious what I had to say. Your proposition that the US couldn't invade anywhere relevant is flawed and your contention regarding whether or not the Soviets would allow US troops on thier soil is at best unproven and based on historical evidence rather dubious. Furthermore you've accused Hopkins and FDR of having positions and objectives that are clearly not well substantiated.

[Karl Heidenreich]

It is not only me that thinks that without the United Kingdom the US would be unable to start operations against the nazis. No unsinkable aircraft carrier, no british fleet, no british soldiers, airmen and sailors. Germans that would very likely had defeated or negotiated a peace with the Soviets would have numerical parity with the Americans. A victorious and less paranoid Hitler will be less likely to commit the June 1944 mistakes.

On the issue of Americans in Soviet soild is very different to have some flights to land in NVKD secluded areas than to permit George Smith Patton's Third Army to come through Iran to the URSS and let them fight alongside Vatutin, Vasiliesvsky or Zhukov.

Aboout FDR and Hopkins there is documentation on that. Being here, in Colombia instead that at home I do not be able to retrieve my bibliography on this. However I made a point with the mentioned book of the Politcal Incorect Guide, for starters.

And you are correct: it's T34 instead of T32: sorry. Typing mistake.

[RF]

.... that without the United Kingdom the US would be unable to start operations against the nazis. No unsinkable aircraft carrier, no british fleet, no british soldiers, airmen and sailors. Germans that would very likely had defeated or negotiated a peace with the Soviets would have numerical parity with the Americans. A victorious and less paranoid Hitler will be less likely to commit the June 1944 mistakes.
Typing mistake.

I think this is an unlikely scenario, as even if Britain was overunn there would be substantial British and Empire forces available to support the Americans. And the Americans were quite capable of launching amphibious operations right across an ocean.

[neil hilton]

...And the Americans were quite capable of launching amphibious operations right across an ocean.

This is true, however the US balked at invading Japan itself.

[RF]

True, because they had the atomic bomb to force capitulation.

The Americans would have had a good idea of the state of Japan's economy and the likilihood of initial feocious resitance that would lead to millions of Japanese casualties and dead. Without the atom bomb I think the US would have been forced to invade for fear that the Russians would invade first, from Soviet occuppied Korea.

Invading western Europe would be a different proposition, if the bulk of the German forces were in the East and there were resistance movements to assist them.

[Karl Heidenreich]

RF:

I think this is an unlikely scenario, as even if Britain was overunn there would be substantial British and Empire forces available to support the Americans. And the Americans were quite capable of launching amphibious operations right across an ocean.

Incorrect. They couldn't. In the case of Japan it took them four years and the conquest of a whole series of islands, approaching and surrounding Japan to establish the strategical lock to invade. One thing is Day 1 landings, with 80 or 100 thousand soldiers from hundred of ships and escorts. Another one is to land 5.4 million, tanks, fuel and amunition that came from those same ships sent back to close bases (or England in the case of the Atlantic) to have them return to land those men and supplies.

If Germany has won over England and it's an ally of Spain those approaches from the Atlantic as Canarias or Azores will be occupied by German garrisons and well protected. The US will not be able to mount any operation of such class before Japan is defeated. By then the Germans would have studied the American operations and will be prepared for them with the superior technology and awesome tactical skills.

And even if the Germans let the US to invade Africa, then the US would have faced MILLIONS of Germans troops instead than a thousands. And Germans could deal better with high casualties. When the US casualties in that theater got to a third of what the Soviets had the public opinion in the US would demand the cease of hostilities. In VIetnam with 59 K they threw the towel. WIth a 1 or 2 million in six months and a minimal or none advance in Tunez not against Rommel but someone better as Manstein and it's Waffen SS Pz divisions, the Grossdeutschland supporting an Afrika Korps that it's NOT fighting 8th Army... to be honest the US would not even try it.

And about atomic bombs... if Britain is defeated the Germans woudl have the time and resources to come with their own around the time the US did. A lot of British help for the bomb will also be denied to the US. And, also, by then the Germans will be the sole possesors of ballistic missiles and combat jets, at least those that worked.

[RF]

This is all conjecture. It is unlikely that the outcome of a conflict in 1940/1941 would produce a scenario such as this because it is totally beyond Germany's resources and logistics to do so. Many in the Wehrmacht doubted whether Germany had the military logistics to occupy the USSR up to the Urals.

If Germany is stretched from the Urals to the mid-Atlantic islands, then German possession of the likes of Iceland, Azores, Canarias and Cape Verde actually makes it easier for the Americans because they could only be lightly defended.

With respect to cross ocean invasions, most of the US forces in the Torch landings came direct from the US. The USA had the logistics of a superr-power, while Germany was not that efficient in logistics or in organising its economy properly for total war, in spite of its propaganda that it was
I would add that as the German General Staff were land minded, there is little chance of them understanding cross ocean sea warfare. Their appreciation of matters in the Pacific was such that on 9 December 1941 when Hitler asked the question ''where was Pearl Harbor?'' none of the generals or even the naval adjutant gathered at his conference were able to pinpoint it on a map.

[RF]

And about atomic bombs... if Britain is defeated the Germans woudl have the time and resources to come with their own around the time the US did. A lot of British help for the bomb will also be denied to the US. And, also, by then the Germans will be the sole possesors of ballistic missiles and combat jets, at least those that worked.

Remember that this is only likely if Hitler actually pushes for the atomic bomb - if he doesn't then the atom bomb project ends up in a bureacratic competition along with all the other projects in the Third Reich, headed by apparachiks only to ready to condemn the project as ''Jewish physics.''

[José M. Rico]

Before thinking of any European landings the US should first defeat the U-boats. There would be hundreds of them by 1943. Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau would be around as well, and don't forget the Italian Navy that could operate from Gibraltar.