Could not be more wrong. FDR behind the scenes pledged full support of England prior to getting the U.S. Actually involved in the war. Again the war was perceived by the U.S. Citizens as a European conflict. Something had to happen to change that mentality and that occurred Dec 7 1941. The war up until tht time was not being fought on US soil and was being fought half way around the world. No chance any American Govt could convince the American populous to send boys off to die for a war that was not impacting the U.S. Other points to consider: 1) Lend Lease and other more secret agreements. US "leased" Britain arms, ammunition, tanks, planes, ships, fuel oil and other supplies. 2) Troops. Britain couldn't have beaten Germany, even with USSR's help, because they didn't have the numbers. True even today. Tony Blair came crying to Clinton over Kosovo and Bush Jr over Iraq because UK doesn't have men or resources to do anything on their own. US didn't jump in at the last minute. America joined in Dec 41. War ended in 45. When British PM Winston Churchill heard about Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, he breathed a sigh of relief and said "We have now won the war". Even he knew Britain couldn't get it done without the US. Not just Britain. US saved Australia and New Zealand. After the British lost Singapore--worst military defeat in British history--US took over total responsibility for defense of Australia due to Britain's impotence in the Pacific (a promise made by FDR to Churchill). Some strategic moves and battles in 42 in the Pacific were done to keep Japan away from either invading Australia or having a airbase to strike Australia. (EDIT--Coral Sea NOT Midway which had little if anything to do with Australia) Most Brits forget about the Pacific War. Probably because after Singapore they considered their war against Japan a "lost cause" and the fact they were losing in the war to the more immediate threat of Nazi Germany. Everyone here has an opinion. The opinion that matters most is the British PM and the British war cabinet. After Dunkirk, many wanted to seek peace (surrender) with Germany. After the Battle of Britain (brilliance by RAF that should be hailed, celebrated, and studied for generations to come) Churchill didn't say the war was won. After Germany invaded USSR, Brits didn't think war was won. After El-Alamein won by Brits driving Lend-Lease US tanks, Brits didn't believe war was won. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and brought US in the war, Churchill celebrated and declared the war won. The British PM, war cabinet, and Military leaders(except perhaps Bernard "give me more headlines than anyone else including my men" Montgomery) believed they could not have won the war without the US. Proof is really in the thoughts of those who were heading up the government of England at that time. Once the U.S. Was involved Churchill and his cabinet then felt they could win.
About what? Not possible, as there was no English government That's fine, but there was plenty the US could have done before they entered the war. Your claim is false. We've considered it - at length, on the last page. Remember? When I was talking about the loans we paid of in 2005/2006? That's the lease agreement loans. This is completely made up. At no time did I say they did. My disrespect for America's considerable role in WW2 is all in your head. I just pointed out that this statement, made by you: Is nonsense. And it is. You just seem so out of your depth here. Churchill, by legend, declaring "we have now won the war" IN NO WAY precludes Germany being defeated without US involvement. It just means that once the US enters the war, Churchill expects the allies to win. Do you not see that?
U.S. Give full support before Dec 7 1941. We just did not declare war nor did we send troops. Again no U.S. Govt could make a case to send boys off to war in what was considered a European conflict. Was not going to occur until the war came to our shores in one way or another. England used our supplies and we supplied the troops to make the war winnable. England did not have the numbers to beat Germany until the U.S. Was involved, Ignoring the pacific front are you? The U.S. Saved Australia and New Zealand from invasion.....where did the English forces go??? Lol.
A couple of points should be made: America's direct military involvement didn't strictly start after Pearl Harbor. American ships often used to hoist the Union Jack, then fire on German ships. Also the fact that they sheltered and repaired British warships, contravened the rules of neutrality. Even when Britain stood alone, it was still a force to be reckoned with. It controlled a global empire, with vast material and human resources. The Indian army alone was one of the biggest in the world. The German defeat on the Eastern Front, was ultimately a tactical one. The Russian generals were breathtakingly incompetent early in the war, but eventually a new and effective generation of commanders emerged. They learned from their mistakes, copied the German tactics, and eventually improved upon them in some respects. A major reason that the Axis lost, was failure to coordinate their resources, and efforts. For example the Axis had enough naval forces to defeat the Royal Navy between them, but they pursued different agendas, and allowed the Royal Navy to pick them of piecemeal.
This is all stuff we've been over, but no they didn't. I'm going to explain why they didn't in a simple format and before you make this statement again please have a read of it. 1 - They didn't give weaponry and armour to the UK but rather leased it at a very reasonable price. This is not full support. 2 - Full exchanges of intelligence did not occur at any time during the American time in the war. Before the war it was even more limited. This is not full support. 3 - The Americans did not, as policy, fire on German ships. This is not full support. 4 - The Americans did not attack the German army. This is not full support. 5 - The Americans did not outline a full diplomatic program of exclusion for Germany in the event it should be victorious. This is not full support. What you are saying isn't true. Yeah, I know that. Why are you telling me that? I told you that after you said America did "everything it could" in WW2. No; once we had agreed terms for those items, they became our supplies that we had purchased from you. We did NOT "use" your supplies. Really, it's very difficult to have a conversation with you about one front, never mind two - the things you are writing are very strange. The Pacific War was Americas war. I haven't disagreed with you about it because I agree with much of what you are saying (although I still find all this stuff about "saving" the Australians jingoistic and rather unpleasant).
Stalin & Co., at first by incompetence and later by design, allowed the Krauts to become over-extended and get caught in a logistics nightmare. Hophead Goering never developed long range transport (or big bombers) for the Luftwaffe and thus the Wehrmacht got trapped in the culdesac on the Volga with no food and summer apparel... Meanwhile, the Red Generals were coached up by the experience and waged an infernal march westward... never letting the Krauts gain access to the oil fields in the South which were so desperately needed to keep their war machine going.
Lend leasing of tanks and weaponry is using our supplies. We manufactured them you did not. We supplied England with weaponry prior to entering the war and after entering the war. Hundreds of thousands of our boys died helping your country beat its arch enemy. Without us you probably lose. Providing supplies and the lives of our troops in a war half way around the glide does mean we did everything was could and guess what we were successful. In the end that is what matters.
Well if it's the manufacturer that matters, you don't own your car. None of this is up for debate. This is hugely debatable and continues to be debated by historians of all nationalities. Why you think you have the final word on this and why you think it is even remotely possible that Britain might collapse in 1941 is incredible to me. No, doing all you could would be doing all you could; that is a statement with an actual meaning, it doesn't mean whatever you fell is the right amount in this case.
Hard to balance as without the 10,000 tanks, 30,000 Jeeps and 250,000 trucks built by GM and Ford then the Russian offensives of 1944 and 1945 could not have happened. Many historians list of war winning weapons include the Jeep as utterly essential to victory. US industrial might and possession of 90% of the worlds oil reserves at the time cannot be underestimated as a factor in the defeat of the AXIS.
Where do you get this from? Not only COULD it have happened, it inarguably WOULD have happened. The only question is whether or not it would have been successful. The Russians were outproducing Germany at this point of the war. Independent of what USA was giving. Please, don't pretend you've read "many historians" and come to this conclusion. Some of the things you are saying are outright bizarre. The claims you are making - that the Soviets couldn't have mounted an offence without US assitance, that UK could have collapsed in 1941 without US aid - are like things a child would say.
The American's didn't enter the war out of the goodness of their hearts. The German's had started to torpedo merchant ships, some close to the US borders. Even the most myopic American could have seen that a victory for German and them controlling Europe would have been bad for the US. Also with respect to Britain entering the war, because of the commonwealth and various other historical ties, once Britain declared war on Germany, that automatically meant that New Zealand, Australia, Canada and several other coutries were also committed to war, much like the NATO pact of today. From Wikipedia; Initially the contribution to the fighting in Europe came in the form of manpower, food supplies and training. Australia, New Zealand and South Africa provided troops for the defence of Egypt, where British troops were outnumbered four to one by the Italian armies in Libya and Ethiopia The British Commonwealth Air Training Plan (also known as the "Empire Air Training Scheme") was established by the governments of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK resulting in: joint training at flight schools in Canada, Southern Rhodesia, Australia and New Zealand; formation of new squadrons of the Dominion air forces, known as "Article XV squadrons" for service as part of Royal Air Force operational commands, and; in practice, the pooling of RAF and Dominion air force personnel, for posting to both RAF and Article XV squadrons. Now I'm not saying the US wasn't extremely important to winning the war, but I would argue that the decision to try and invade the Soviet Union was far more beneficial in terms of the outcome. That was an unmitigated disaster. That said, an estimated 20M Soviet Union citizen's died and many more were wounded, (around 8M soldier's died and millions of civilian's) fighting in WW2 and it was because Stalin didn't care how many of his citizen's died, he only cared about the outcome that allowed the Soviet Union both to win the war on their front and to ensure Germany also sustained massive casualties. German lost about 5.5 Million soldier's and the US lost about 450,000, Britain a little less.
