International Was American involvement in world war 2 key to victory?

[Siver!]

Again, the British never seriously considered surrendering. What historical evidence is there of this?

What do you mean 'Britain never seriously considered surrendering'?

What historical evidence is there?

There was an entire war cabinet crisis, a change of Prime Minister to Churchill mid-war, and the fact Churchill started out leading a coalition government when he was not the Conservative party leader. Without any sort of consolidated rule, it was a ridiculously perilous time for Churchill, and a negotiated peace was absolutely seriously considered by the British government and the War Cabinet.

I don't quite understand why you've posted this? It's massively well documented, not an obscure secret.

I'm guessing what you mean is Winston Churchill never seriously wanted to negotiate peace terms, but that's also a ridiculous stretch. Of course he did. It was discussed for days on end.

 

[Siver!]

@avenue94

This says it pretty well.

I think this also sums up where you're coming from with a lot of your stances: now seen with hindsight

Of course Churchill wouldn't consider entering peace talks with Hitler with hindsight, of course Germany didn't defeat the RAF with hindsight, but both of those things came perilously close to happening. In seems with hindsight you've decided all of this is impossible, even though all the evidence suggests otherwise. In this particular example, with hindsight just leads to a fallacy. Britain didn't consider peace negotiations even though they absolutely did, provably, consider peace negotiations.

Churchill Considered making deal with Nazi Germany during Dunkirk evacuation

-

warwick.ac.uk

The 26th and 27th May 1940 Dunkirk evacuation of British and French troops is now seen with hindsight as an example of Britain's determination to resist Nazi Germany at all costs. However University of Warwick Historian Dr David Carlton points out that at the time things seemed so dark for Britain that Churchill himself considered making a deal with Nazi Germany to end the war.

In his book Churchill and the Soviet Union Dr Carlton points out that things were looking so dark for Britain in 1940 that even Churchill himself made it clear that he would not object in principle to negotiations with Nazi Germany, 'if Herr Hitler was prepared to make peace on the terms of the restoration of German colonies and the overlordship of Eastern Europe'.

On the 26th Of May 1940 with British forces struggling to get of the beaches at Dunkirk Churchill went even further saying, according to the War Cabinet Minutes, 'that he would be thankful to get out of our present difficulties, provided we retained the essentials of our vital strength, even at the cost of some cession of territory'. The British territory he may have been prepared to give up is made clear in Chamberlain's diary entry for 27th May, in which he said that the Prime Minister had told his colleagues that 'if we could get out of this jam by giving up Malta and Gibraltar and some African colonies he would jump at it.'

 

[avenue94]

There was an entire war cabinet crisis, a change of Prime Minister to Churchill mid-war, and the fact Churchill started out leading a coalition government when he was not the Conservative party leader. Without any sort of consolidated rule, it was a ridiculously perilous time for Churchill, and a negotiated peace was absolutely seriously considered by the British government.

The main cabinet member in favor of negotiating with Germany (and it would not have been a surrender), was Lord Halifax. He had taken himself out of the PM race and his push to negotiate with the Germans was very heavily voted down. There was also a massive distrust of any negotiations with Hitler after Munich.

There was an entire war cabinet crisis, a change of Prime Minister to Churchill mid-war, and the fact Churchill started out leading a coalition government when he was not the Conservative party leader. Without any sort of consolidated rule, it was a ridiculously perilous time for Churchill, and a negotiated peace was absolutely seriously considered by the British government.

As I mentioned, there was discussion, then it was firmly voted down. We never saw any actual negotiations, or even serious backchanneling.

Of course Churchill wouldn't consider entering peace talks with Hitler with hindsight, of course Germany didn't defeat the RAF with hindsight, but both of those things came perilously close to happening. In seems with hindsight you've decided all of this is impossible, even though all the evidence suggests otherwise. In this particular example, with hindsight just leads to a fallacy. Britain didn't consider peace negotiations even though they absolutely did, provably, consider peace negotiations.

Again, this is not a secret. It was considered, then rather quickly discarded as an option by both Churchill and the cabinet. He was also proposing negotiations, which even if the UK had gone down that path, had no guarantee of leading to a compromise that both sides found agreeable.

 

[USA!USA!]

There's no doubt they did.

Someone in this thread said they produced ten thousand planes but I'm pretty sure the number was actually fifty thousand. I watched a documentary on American production engineering in WWII and it was almost unbelievable what they were able to accomplish.

If all they did was manufacture and support Britain and the Russians with materiel during WWII they'd have to be considered an overwhelming influence, but obviously they did a hell of a lot more than that.

Russia can't be ignored, though, the lion's share of the Wehrmacht was mired on the eastern front; my German grandfather was captured there and spent time in a Russian POW camp.

I read this a very long time ago, it's a series of interviews with German generals immediately following WWII and they mostly blamed underestimating Russia and attacking them too close to winter without sufficient equipment.

Absolutely - no question. Russia sacrificed a lot (understatement) to fight and bring an end to the war. No one country can take all of the credit for the Allied victory. The victory was not possible without the US just as it would have not been possible to win in that way without Russia and their contributions.

 

[Siver!]

The main cabinet member in favor of negotiating with Germany (and it would not have been a surrender), was Lord Halifax. He had taken himself out of the PM race and his push to negotiate with the Germans was very heavily voted down. There was also a massive distrust of any negotiations with Hitler after Munich.

As I mentioned, there was discussion, then it was firmly voted down. We never saw any actual negotiations, or even serious backchanneling.

Again, this is not a secret. It was considered, then rather quickly discarded as an option by both Churchill and the cabinet. He was also proposing negotiations, which even if the UK had gone down that path, had no guarantee of leading to a compromise that both sides found agreeable.

Yeah, it was discarded immediately after the miraculous events of Dunkirk. Immediately before and during the crisis, when it didn't look like Britain would get their troops out of there, it was 100 % on the table and seriously considered.

I've just shown you that Churchill considered giving up specific territories because his army was trapped and defeated. Until it wasn't. And then he no longer wanted to give anything away.

 

[Andy Capp]

What kind of sick shit is that to post here? Go to hell.

 

[avenue94]

Yeah, it was discarded immediately after the miraculous events of Dunkirk. Immediately before and during the crisis, when it didn't look like Britain would get their troops out of there, it was 100 % on the table and seriously considered.

I've just shown you that Churchill considered giving up specific territories because his army was trapped and defeated. Until it wasn't. And then he no longer wanted to give anything away.

Yes, and it came nowhere close to actually happening. You're also conflating the War Cabinet's views during the Fall of France with that of it during Dunkirk. Two very different scenario, you can't just mash up two distinct events and then argue that because there were doubts about staying in the war in event 1 that means the UK almost folded in event 2.

This all goes back to my original point: You still have not acknowledged how impossible an amphibious invasion of the UK was for Germany. At no point in WW2 did it ever have the capabilities for it, let alone in 1940.

 

[Siver!]

Yes, and it came nowhere close to actually happening.

I don't really know how to respond to this.

Britain seriously considered peace negotiations with Germany.

I don't see it's worth debating.

You're also conflating the War Cabinet's views during the Fall of France with that of it during Dunkirk. Two very different scenario, you can't just mash up two distinct events and then argue that because there were doubts about staying in the war in event 1 that means the UK almost folded in event 2.

This all goes back to my original point: You still have not acknowledged how impossible an amphibious invasion of the UK was for Germany. At no point in WW2 did it ever have the capabilities for it, let alone in 1940.

This is a timeline of events, not a series of disparate occurrences and scenarios lol

Britain was in the shit. It was still in the shit despite the Dunkirk evacuation, Britain still lost the remaining troops stationed in France, and then saw its airforce pummeled in the Battle of Britain after it's closest ally had just surrendered.

An invasion of Britain was never impossible, but it did require the further defeat of the RAF, and would still have been a very difficult undertaking. That's all. That's not the same as impossible, not even by a long chalk. I've no idea why you'd insist it was impossible, the best you can argue is it would probably have failed.

 

[Arashikage4Life]

Yes, an invasion of the British Isles was basically a logistical impossibility for Nazi Germany in 1940. Maybe after they had conquered Russia and the Middle East and gathered the requisite supplies to construct a navy to compete with Britain could they hope to achieve it. As for why they didn't seriously entertain surrender overtures from the Germans -- they had already seen Hitler break promises and mistreat other surrendered countries in Europe, why would they be any different? Also, they figured their position for terms would only improve the longer they held out (which would also allow time for the U.S.A. to become involved).

 

[Siver!]

Yes, an invasion of the British Isles was basically a logistical impossibility for Nazi Germany in 1940. Maybe after they had conquered Russia and the Middle East and gathered the requisite supplies to construct a navy to compete with Britain could they hope to achieve it. As for why they didn't seriously entertain surrender overtures from the Germans -- they had already seen Hitler break promises and mistreat other surrendered countries in Europe, why would they be any different? Also, they figured their position for terms would only improve the longer they held out (which would also allow time for the U.S.A. to become involved).

Here are some other reasons why an invasion perhaps never materialized, other than the threat of the RAF and logistical and mechanical issues:

While Hitler frittered away whatever small chances there might have been of coming to terms with England, he also threw away the military chances of forcing a peace upon her. He was dominated by two assumptions: that we must not defeat her and that we must save up all we had for the Russian campaign.
British propaganda twisted the fact that Hitler failed to invade England into a proof of England's invincibility. The truth, however, was, as I can testify, that Hitler never went ahead with his plan for the invasion but regarded it as dubious from a technical point of view and politically undesirable.
The preparations for the invasion were so extensive that it seems hardly possible that they could have been against Hitler's wishes. Nevertheless, it seems to have been so. But in my opinion the reasons that decided Hitler against the invasion were political rather than military.
For the reader to understand this, I must repeat that Hitler, according to my own observations, was inspired by a strange love-hatred of England. He admired the British empire and repeatedly pronounced it the greatest wonder-work every wrought by God. He was convinced the British were permeated through and through by Germanic conceptions of honour and that they would be his allies some day. He attributed the hostility that they felt towards Germany and his own person, and, in particular, towards the National Socialist party, to American and Jewish machinations.
Even while we were working on the peace proposals, Ribbentrop [Germany's foreign minister] asked me if I thought the British would fight on if the invasion succeeded. I told him I was convinced that the British would fight to the last man. It seemed to me that Churchill could never be forced to give way even by a successful invasion. From the reports of our agents, I gathered that, if the invasion succeeded, Churchill would transfer the government to Canada and continue the war.
I also told Ribbentrop that, in my opinion, the invasion might lead to intervention on the part of the US, so that it would be no more than a pyrrhic victory and perhaps not worth the sacrifices it would cost us. I expressed the view that only a war of attrition, lasting for years, with ever-renewed willingness to come to terms, could, in the end, compel the British to recognise our ascendancy on the continent and make peace with us.

Hitler and the English by Fritz Hesse, translated by FA Voigt (1954). Hesse was a press attaché and diplomat at the the German embassy in London

Did Hitler try to invade Britain?

Was Operation Sealion a reality or just a propaganda victory for Britain?

www.theguardian.com

Something else to consider aside from purist wargaming or whatever seems to be happening.

 

[avenue94]

I don't really know how to respond to this.

Britain seriously considered peace negotiations with Germany.

I don't see it's worth debating.

You keep conflating discussing whether to start peace negotiations with a peace agreement. What was under discussion was to the possibility of opening discussions (which was overwhelming voted down), which would have led to this chain of events.
-Actually sitting down and negotiating
-Finding common space between Hitler's terms and what the UK wanted (preservation of its empire)
-Then selling this agreement to MPs who already distrusted Nazi Germany after it renegaded on the Munich agreement
-Then this agreement would have had to been sold to the British public.

There's very little evidence to suggest that by the time of the Battle of Britain all of the following conditions could have been met. And as I've already pointed out, the UK never even started serious backchanneling, which is the precursor to most negotiations.

An invasion of Britain was never impossible, but it did require the further defeat of the RAF, and would still have been a very difficult undertaking. That's all. That's not the same as impossible, not even by a long chalk. I've no idea why you'd insist it was impossible, the best you can argue is it would probably have failed.

And invasion of Britain was possible. A successful German invasion was impossible. Period. We're talking an invasion force that would have landed with effectively no armor, no naval support and been under attack from the entire British Home Fleet, which the Germans would have been powerless to stop.

Like..do you even have an idea of how the Germans were going to supply its invasion force, or even what naval forces Germany had available by 1940?

 

[avenue94]

Here are some other reasons why an invasion perhaps never materialized, other than the threat of the RAF and logistical and mechanical issues:

It's very odd to argue that Hitler wasn't seriously considering an invasion of the UK when he was ordering preparations and planning. I can't turn up much about the actual source you're quoting, other than he seems to have existed, but his recollections smack of a low level operator pretending that he was in the room with very senior leaders, or making educated guesses about that. It would have been very odd for a low-level attaché to have been in close proximity to Hitler or military high command.

 

[Siver!]

You keep conflating discussing whether to start peace negotiations with a peace agreement. What was under discussion was to the possibility of opening discussions (which was overwhelming voted down), which would have led to this chain of events.
-Actually sitting down and negotiating
-Finding common space between Hitler's terms and what the UK wanted (preservation of its empire)
-Then selling this agreement to MPs who already distrusted Nazi Germany after it renegaded on the Munich agreement
-Then this agreement would have had to been sold to the British public.

There's very little evidence to suggest that by the time of the Battle of Britain all of the following conditions could have been met. And as I've already pointed out, the UK never even started serious backchanneling, which is the precursor to most negotiations.

And invasion of Britain was possible. A successful German invasion was impossible. Period. We're talking an invasion force that would have landed with effectively no armor, no naval support and been under attack from the entire British Home Fleet, which the Germans would have been powerless to stop.

Like..do you even have an idea of how the Germans were going to supply its invasion force, or even what naval forces Germany had available by 1940?

I think the issue is you keep working in absolutes. I've listed a few below that just aren't true, but you've claimed at one point or another. That last one I'm not sure you've claimed, but it seems to be your thought process:

'There is no scenario where Germany was able to knock Britain out of the war militarily or politically' - WRONG - Britain very nearly took itself off the table in the lead up to and during the events at Dunkirk, and probably would have if the evacuations had failed - the scenario isn't just likely, it almost happened
'Britain never seriously considered peace negotiations' - WRONG - Britain did seriously consider peace negotiations, and Churchill himself even drew up a list of territories to hand over when the situation was bleakest
'Nazi Germany was undeterrable, even by the USA' - WRONG - Fritz Hesse says Germany WAS deterred from invading the UK partially due to the potential threat of intervention from the USA
'An invasion of Britain was impossible' - WRONG - By taking the RAF out of action, this was certainly possible, but might not have been a success

But the other thing is, there were plenty of scenarios where Britain might have sued for peace without an invasion even taking place.

'Germany would have had to invade Britain to defeat Britain' - WRONG - Britain could have potentially sued for peace if Dunkirk had failed, or if they had lost the RAF, or at some other point

All in all, the whole amphibious assault thing that you brought into this probably wouldn't even matter.

Still, it was an interesting back and forth, and I appreciate your pushback. Cheers, you're a good person to debate with, and I respect your opinion on this more than it probably seems.

 

[Siver!]

It's very odd to argue that Hitler wasn't seriously considering an invasion of the UK when he was ordering preparations and planning. I can't turn up much about the actual source you're quoting, other than he seems to have existed, but his recollections smack of a low level operator pretending that he was in the room with very senior leaders, or making educated guesses about that. It would have been very odd for a low-level attaché to have been in close proximity to Hitler or military high command.

Yeah, that is weird, I think Hitler for sure intended to invade Britain.

It's also possible he may have thought that after routing the British army in France, then disabling the RAF, the threat of a prepared land invasion may have been more than enough to break Churchill.

But I can't believe there was no plan to push through with it if necessary.

Anyway.

I'm very, very glad none of that happened!

 

[avenue94]

'There is no scenario where Germany was able to knock Britain out of the war militarily or politically' - WRONG - Britain very nearly took itself off the table in the lead up to and during the events at Dunkirk, and probably would have if the evacuations had failed - the scenario isn't just likely, it almost happened

What we saw was the worst case scenario. Unless we're talking a typhoon sinking the Home Fleet magically or Hitler being an entirely different human being with different goals and disposition, or Churchill suddenly having a stroke, the scenarios you keep proposing are incredibly incredibly unlikely (aka "impossible" in lay man's terms).

'Britain never seriously considered peace negotiations' - WRONG - Britain did seriously consider peace negotiations, and Churchill himself even drew up a list of territories to hand over when the situation was bleakest

And if they were serious, they would have voted to start negotiations . They didn't even come close to that.

'Nazi Germany was undeterrable, even by the USA' - WRONG - Fritz Hesse says Germany WAS deterred from invading the UK partially due to the potential threat of intervention from the USA

Well...the Nazis invaded several countries and committed genocide. That's pretty clearly undeterrable. They had multiple options to get off that freeway, and they didn't.

An invasion of Britain was impossible' - WRONG - By taking the RAF out of action, this was certainly possible, but might not have been a success

How were the Nazis going to ferry over 9 divisions and keep them in sufficient supply for heavy combat? How were these divisions even supposed to neutralize fortifications since they'd be landing with next to no armor and no naval fire support.

'Germany would have had to invade Britain to defeat Britain' - WRONG - Britain could have potentially sued for peace if Dunkirk had failed, or if they had lost the RAF, or at some other point

Except we don't need to play counterfactual. Neither of these scenarios happened. You aren't proposing actual realistic counterfactuals (aka events that were close to happening) you're writing historical fiction here that isn't grounded in history and the ample records we have access to.

Still, it was an interesting back and forth, and I appreciate your pushback. Cheers, you're a good person to debate with, and I respect your opinion on this more than it probably seems.

All good, it's been fun and no hard feelings.

 

[Fluffernutter]

Yes

 

[Arashikage4Life]

I think it's accurate to say that Hitler would have eventually attempted to invade Britain, but I don't think there is any scenario that Germany invades before they have a substantial enough navy to effect a successful invasion. If this was successful, Britain would probably have become a puppet state similar to Vichy France with, of course, all of their Jews and other "undesirables" being exported for extermination.

But beating Britain wasn't a main goal for Hitler -- it was always Russia. So it's difficult to say what would or could have happened because even though preliminary invasion plans were drawn up, they were never seriously pursued as Hitler was already turning East before the last boat was gone from Dunkirk.

 

[Deorum]

I only really see Americans post about America vs China.

I'm not really sure I've seen anyone else comment on this fantasy battle.

Anyone who says either China is imminently becoming the world's greatest super power, OR, China is about to wither and die are both equally stupid.

There's no basis for either sentiment, it's just meaningless rhetoric.

It isn't going to die, and there will (likely) be no sort of spectacular collapse - nor is that even desirable given existing economic coupling - but it's already withering.

 

[Thrawn33]

The answer to every single one of these questions is a resounding No, and mind you, the a "no" to any of these questions would have guaranteed German failure. I really don't you think grasp how much of a feat an amphibious invasion is and what it requires of a country and its military.

Perfect case as to how influential the US was to WW2 victory.

 

[avenue94]

Perfect case as to how influential the US was to WW2 victory.

If you're referring to D-Day, that didn't really alter the outcome of WW2, aside from speeding up the end and allowing the West more of a foothold in occupied Germany post-war.

The US was plenty influential however to the Allies winning.