Did the U.S defeat Hitlers Germany?

sponger wrote:

That's an interesting read. I couldn't google anything on mr. perrin, but I am aware that the development was a collaborative effort of scientists from a number of countries. Just the same: a bird in hand is worth two in the bush. The project was physically in the US, and scientists didn't have cell phones back then. Who is to say the UK would've developed it on their own and physically been able to produce a finished product in time? After all, Mr Perrin a brit reporting on the contribution made by brits. How objective can such a report really be?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TUBE_ALLOYS

The American effort increased rapidly and soon outstripped the British. However separate research continued in each country with some exchange of information. Several of the key British scientists visited the USA early in 1942 and were given full access to all of the information available. They were astounded at the momentum that the American atomic bomb project had then assumed.

The slow neutron research at Cambridge, which the British had thought was not relevant to bomb-making, suddenly acquired military significance, because it provided the route to plutonium. The British Government wanted the Cambridge team to be relocated in Chicago, where the American research was being done but the Americans had became very security-conscious. Only one of the six senior scientists in the Cambridge group, which had originated in Paris, was British. They were therefore sent to Montreal, Canada.

In June 1942 the US Army took over process development, engineering design, procurement of materials and site selection for pilot plants. As a result the information flow to Britain dried up. The Americans stopped sharing any information on heavy water production, the manufacture of uranium hexafluoride, the method of electromagnetic separation, the physical or chemical properties of plutonium, the details of bomb design, or the facts about fast neutron reactions. This was a bombshell to the British and the Canadians who were collaborating on heavy water production and on several other aspects of the research program.

The Montreal team in Canada depended on the Americans for supplies of heavy water from the US heavy water plant in Trail, British Columbia, as well as technical information about plutonium. The Americans said that they would only give heavy water to the Montreal group only if it agreed to direct its research along the limited lines suggested by du Pont. Despite doing much good work, by June 1943 work at the Montreal Lab had come to a complete standstill. Morale was low and the Canadian Government proposed cancelling the project.

Winston Churchill then sought information about building Britain's own diffusion plant, a heavy water plant and an atomic reactor in Britain, despite its immense cost. However in July 1943 in London American officials cleared up some major misunderstandings about British motives, and after many months of negotiations the Quebec Agreement was finally signed by Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt on 19 August 1943. The British then handed over all of their material to the Americans and in return received all the copies of the American progress reports to the President. The British effort was then subsumed into the Manhattan Project until after the war.

In a section of the Quebec Agreement formally entitled "Articles of Agreement governing collaboration between the authorities of the U.S.A. and UK in the matter of Tube Alloys", Britain and the USA agreed to share resources to bring the Tube Alloys [i.e. the Atomic Bomb] project to fruition at the earliest moment.

The leaders agreed that

we will never use this agency against each other,
we will not use it against third parties without each other's consent, and
we will not either of us communicate any information about Tube Alloys to third parties except by mutual consent.
It was also agreed that any post-war advantages of an industrial or commercial nature would be decided at the discretion of the U.S. President.

Later in the war, tube alloy came to refer specifically to the synthetic element plutonium, whose very existence was secret until its use in the atomic bombing of Nagasaki.

Byrnzie wrote:

There is no bias here. The thought hadn't crossed my mind. I could be wrong about this, but as far as I know the U.S navy was concentrated in the Pacific between 1941 - 45. The reason the U-boats were finally defeated in the Atlantic was due to a combination of - as you mention - Liberty Ships.........better sonar.......radar coordination of naval flights........better convey tatics, and the breaking of the enigma code. I am of the belief that U.S air force pilots concentrated on heavy bombing missions over occupied Europe and weren't involved to any large degree in the Atlantic. Again, I could be wrong about this.

and the Liberty ships came from where???????

The American Air Army Corps (it's not the Air Force until 1945) began their efforts in North Africa as part of the Allied effort on that continent (theater).

The navy's planes, while concentrated in the Pacific, still maintained anti-submarine efforts within their limited reach from the coastal areas. Aircraft carriers were not a major factor in the Atlantic simply due to the less than optimal operating conditions on that body of water. The H.M.S. Ark Royal did play a pivotal role in the sinking of the Bismarck, but it's main theater of operation was the Med., where it was sunk in 1941 or 1942 (that information is not within my reach at the moment and I don't use wikipedia). What I am trying to say is that aircraft were of secondary importance in the war against the U-boats mainly due to their then limited ability to extend beyond the coastal regions. As the flight duration abilities of planes increased, thus did their importance in the Battle of the Atlantic.

Why was anti-submarine warfare important??? Because U-Boat activity interdicted movement of food, goods, arms, and men from British lands (Canada, especially) and from their allies (mainly the U.S.). The British and their allies were fighting on multiple fronts.......North Africa, Burma, the south Pacific. Goods were required to maintain all of these efforts. Goods from Britain proper, Canada, South America, Australia and proportionally the United States. These same allies also had to bolster resistance movements in France, China, SE Asia and Norway. They also had to help feed and arm Russia. Supplies were shipped to the Russian far east and to the north of Russia. The Northern route was guarded by U-boats, coastal defenses (including the Luftwaffe) in occupied Norway and ice. There are many graves of allied sailors, of all nationalities, at sea long this northern supply route.

Would Russia had survived without this effort? Probably not. If over 1/4 of the German army was not tied down or lost in North Africa or guarding Fortress Europe would the Russins have prevailed. Very debatable. Was eastern Russia safe form the Japanese??? Not for long if the Japanese did not have the Americans to contend with.......Siberia would have been a nice piece of the co-prosperity sphere.

As to you.....you have been attempting systematically to deny any importance to the role played by the United States in World War II. May I ask why? The majority of the U.S. posters in this thread have not belittled any nation's efforts in the war, but you continue to grind against giving any significance to the U.S. war effort. Did an American girl dump you? What's at the heart of your beef?

Byrnzie wrote:

Firstly, Did you read the first post on this thread?
Secondly, please provide just one example of when I have 'denied any importance to the role played by the United States in World War II.

Originally Posted by jlew24asu
exactly, his only point was to downplay the significance of america's involvment in the war. which he admits to marginalizing the americans death. or as he calls "put into prespective"

Byrnzie wrote:

Not just the death count. But the efforts and their overall significance.

Byrnzie wrote:

Firstly, the subject of Africa and Italy has been mentioned on here already, but as far as the battle of El Alamein and the defeat of Rommel, this was a British and Canadian victory. The Americans were involved in Italy, sure.
Secondly, I mentioned the importance of America's supplying the Atlantic convoys on one of the first pages of this thread. Although as far as the actual destruction of the U-Boats in the Atlantic, I could be wrong, but I've always been of the impression that this was carried out mainly by the British navy and air force.
Thirdly, I've stated a few times here that America's biggest fight and sacrifice was in the Pacific.
Lastly, I still don't believe that the German army couldn't have been defeated without the Americans. The Ruskies were running the Germans into the ground on their own - although, again the allied air-drops into Russia were a big help to them.
Again, the main thrust of my starting this thread was to emphasize the enormity of the Russian campaign and the fact that their acheivements dwarf those of the allies on the Western front. The statistics speak for themselves.

There was more to North Africa than El Alamein....that battle just turned the tide and prevented the German Army from properly conquering Egypt, a small part of North Africa but very key to the overall war (Suez Canal). North Africa is where Allied troops under the command of Eisenhower got their first taste of amphibous landing/assualt at Casablanca. The North African theater was very widespread with multiple fronts and a diverse group of allies (Brits, Canadians, Free French and yes, Americans.) The U.S. 15th Air Force also got its feet wet in North Africa.

The U-boat destruction was a joint allied effort. The movements of supply ships were guarded by war vessels of either ally. The majority of Liberty ships were carrying the U.S. flag and were built or re-fitted there. In the beginning, the only effective planes against the U-boats were directly defending coastal regions due to limited flight ranges. Later as the technology improved, planes from both sides of the Atlantic became more involved in the effort. Yes, your impression was wrong.

Yes, the initial war effort by the U.S. was in the Pacific. That was where an enemy was closed to either taking our territory or directly threatening our homeland. It was also an agreement between Churchill and Roosevelt that the U.S. would focus in that direction initially. Remember the Japanese also threatened Australia and India, and the U.S. effort and aid directly helped to prevent further Japanese movement towards Australia.

However, the U.S. did provide a large number of men and arms to fight in the ETO. The 8th Air Force that flew with the RAF out of Britain to bomb Germany. The 15th Air Force flying first in North Africa, then Italy. It was this air force that attacked the soft European underbelly of the would-be Nazi empire by bombing petro-chemical assets in Romania (which directly helped the Russians and the Yugo resistance), and it helped in the daylight bombing of Germany itself. The Army that invaded and conquered Italy was heavy in American men and arms. The army that invaded France was heavy in American men and arms. Sounds like a strong effort to me.

If you really want to prove your point.......compare the actual populations of the Allies during the war. I think that you would find that the population of Russia was probably greater than any of the other Allies, thus they had more to give in terms of lives lost. Russia had more land to give. These two factors have been Russia's ace up the sleeve in three major wars against three very different opponents. They have always had more cannon fodder than their opponent and more land to give in retreat. Just ask Charles XII of Sweden....or ask Napoleon....or ask Hitler. This has been their mode of invasion resistance for centuries. It also tends to be the only wars that they win. They can beat Napoleon, but get hammered invading the Ottoman Empire or attacking Japan or Afghanistan.

Byrnzie wrote:

This is all hypothesis. This thread should be about facts.

And all you have stated has been facts??? :rolleyes:

Byrnzie wrote:

Firstly, Did you read the first post on this thread?
Secondly, please provide just one example of when I have 'denied any importance to the role played by the United States in World War II.

Yes, I gave nice answers to your questions.

I think that Paperplates answered that one quite nicely.

Byrnzie wrote:

Right, so their effort can be trivialised as being simply the ability to provide greater cannon fodder. Therefore we can dismiss it. Nice and simple.

It obviously had nothing to do with a wealth of factors including the ability for the entire country to unite and concentrate their efforts, the sheer determination to drive out the invader, tactical stealth and awareness once Stalin handed control to the generals - mainly the most important figure in World war 2 on the allied side: General Zhukov - the Russian character, and the bravery of it's people in the face of a more advanced and better equipped enemy. No. None of this counts. We can write them off as mere cannon fodder.

Yes it does......if Country A has 1000 people and Country B has 100,000 people....Country B can trot an impressive death toll of say, 1000 people, where Country A may only have a death toll of 250 people. Who gave the greatest effort? the greatest sacrifice?

War is about sacrifice....if you have more to sacrifice, you have greater ability to win. If I can kill three of yours for everyone of mine.......I'll take those odds. Cannon fodder is a basic tenet of war and has been for centuries.

The Russian effort was great. They beat what initially was a better force using a combination of factors. The Nazis would not have been defeated without the eastern front, however the eastern front would have been different if there had not been a western front, a southern front and an African theater. You can't say for certain how it would have played out if circumstances would have been different.

Of all the combatants in the war, Germany was probably had the least ability to maintain a multi-front war (Italy is included with Germany, because they were basically a puppet state). That is why they adopted the Blitzkrieg style of warfare. You quickly neutralize your opponent where you don't have to endure protracted combat which would put a drain on your weak supply line and over-burdened industrial base. Blitzkrieg was designed to "live off the land" as they conquered it. It was also designed to work in the smaller confines of Western Europe. Russia used "scorched earth" to wipe the first factor, and a vast land mass to wipe out the second. They sacrificed land and resources because they had both to give, as where the Belgians did not. Without the Blitz, the Wehrmarcht was an ordinary army. They, the Germans, learned some lessons from WWI, but they did not learn enough.

The industrial base for any of the Allies (non-conquered) would in the long run always out strip Nazi Germany's given the time.

reborncareerist wrote:

I missed the last pages of this thread, and its probably been done to death already, but the short answer is yes. The Americans put a lot of money into rebuilding Europe after the war.

Basically, people cannot realistically downplay what the Americans did in WW-II. Sure, they did a lot less of the ground fighting against the Germans, it was the Soviets who lost 20 million men in that fight. But they did shoulder the burden against the Japanese ... They did build the air armada that crippled the German's industrial capabilities, probably enabling a Soviet victory ... The Soviets generally got outfought by the Germans, badly. They won because of sheer numbers and because the German war machine/industry was being pounded from the air. This was a joint effort. And finally, the Americans did more than any other nation to help rebuild in the aftermath.

Very well put for your 8,000th post!