That’s an unusual theory. I think the general historical consensus (as well as my own opinion) is that the United States staying out of the war would have been a disaster for the Soviet Union. Without American intervention in the final months of the war, Germany would have ended up in a better situation and the Western powers would have not been able to impose terms as harsh as the Versailles Treaty. Germany would have maintained some military sovereignty and been able to defend the terms of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty.
deleted
Great Britain purchased five Holland type submarines before the Great War.
Cite: Holland-class submarine - Wikipedia
Perhaps you got your countries mixed up?
Edit: Doh! Sorry. Didn’t see retraction.
Which did not happen anywhere near India.
The UK didn’t just lose Prince of Wales and Repulse to the Japanese; the UK was involved in a full scale land war in Asia with the Japanese. Indian, British, and other Commonwealth troops fought a campaign that lasted four years and was, in and of itself, a full scale war. Japan had already taken Rangoon by March 1942, driving the Allies back into India, and in 1943 challenged Allies defenses in India itself. They were overstretched, though, and by early 1944 the Indians and British, under William Slim, were pursuing the Japanese across Burma; a Chinese invasion from the north further pressured the Japanese, and by spring 1945 most of the Japanese army had been destroyed.
Do you mean the loss of the HMAS Canberra or the HMAS Sydney? I think either could be argued to have been lost in the Pacific theatre, even though the Sydney was lost in action against a German raider. Both losses were devastating to the relatively tiny Royal Austrailian Navy. Especially that of the Sydney, lost as it was with all hands.
WAY. The US didn’t have the supplies to fight on 2 fronts at the beginning of the war. What we had went to GB. You can’t lob money at an enemy.
Never said it did.
Niether did Germany, Russia, Japan or GB. So, then no one was a a “world power”? :dubious:
I would agree with that. Germany didn’t have a real tank at the beginning of the war because of WW-I sanctions imposed on them. They secretly collaborated with the Russians to build a glorified pea-shooter. Their tanks came from captured facilities in Czechoslovakia early in the war. The blitzkrieg tactic against France proved effective against a superior force.
I would also note that in the 1920’s it was rather fashionable for Brits to blame Americans for ‘extending’ the war, and thus adding to the casualties (British having a long standing tradition of blaming their allies for as much as possible that went wrong). Even Winston Churchhill made a few comments that he probably wished he hadn’t made by 1940.
Actually, both GB and France took stock in 1920, and began to realize what a disaster they had participated in. Because both owed HUGE sums to American Banks (billions in the case of the UK); they were grumbling about “Uncle Scrooge”-and used this as justification to keep squeezing the germans for reparations. Despite warnings from economists (like Keynes), they kept trying to extract money from germany. I belive that US participation was a big mistake. It would have been better for both sides to have exhausted themselves, and reach a mutual understanding. keeping the german monarchy (without Kaiser Wilhelm) would have prevented the main cause of the rise of fascism.
Europ winds up destroying itself, every 50-60 years anyway-its better not to interfere.
There was the Russian revolution American early entry (sounds like Dr. Ruth) may have prevented or delayed.
Cite?
You may well be right but it’s not a view I’ve seen. What was the logic? How were the Americans seen as extending the war? Was it because they intervened and thus prevented a truce being agreed earlier or was it that they should have joined the Allies earlier and thus allow the Germans to be beaten sooner?
I believe the French were annoyed that the Americans would not let their first troops to arrive be used as replacements in French units.
I don’t believe that Germany and the Allies would have collapsed in mutual exhaustion if the United States hadn’t entered the war. I believe that Germany would have won.
As it was, they came close, knocking Russia out of the war and into a brutal peace settlement in the winter of 1917-18, and launching the Spring Offensive which pushed the western front back 40 miles and came within 60 miles of Paris.
Without American troops, money, materiel, and above all without the gain in morale from American intervention, I believe the Allied front would have collapsed and the Germans would have captured Paris. And I believe that would have caused the French government to fall and a successor to sue for peace.
To be sure, there would still have been a “negotiated settlement”. But the negotiations would have taken place with German troops on French soil rather than the reverse.
From a distance, it’s hard to say whether this would have been better or worse for the world. Given what actually happened over the next 30 years, it’s difficult to imagine that anything could have been worse. The Hapsburg and Hohenzollern houses would have survived, at least for a while, and might even have evolved into constitutional monarchies which would still be with us today.
The defeated and angry nation, burning for revenge and hunting for scapegoats, ripe for takeover by Communists or fascists, would have been . . . France :eek:.
http://www.greatwar.nl/frames/default-churchill.html
Churchill was under the impression that things would have ended in 1917 had America not joined. (the quote is controversial, but it does reflect his opinions of the time).
The quote stemmed from the 1930’s, but things were not great in US/UK relationships during the 20’s. I think one of the Naval restriction treaties failed because the two groups were at odds.
There were many Brits that were annoyed that the US never had to go to a wartime economy, and used mostly French and British equipment when we got here. Then our economy prospered in the aftermath of the war, while the longer combatants had a mess to clean up. That lead to quite a lot of bitterness.
Speaking as a European (Brit) the theory that because some of the mechanisms used as weapons were thought about originally in the U.S. and as such the world wars are the U.S.s responsibility is in my opinion one of the most infantile and peurile imaginable .
I hope that when your friends sobered up the next day they realised just how pathetic their ideas were and hastened to deny that they took such an idea seriously(are you absaloutly sure that they werent just “winding you up” ?)
We started the wars,we fought the wars ,we adapted items (such as the agricultural tractor and the aeroplane/airplane )to military uses.
If we took the argument seriously we wouldnt condemn for example ,a murderer because he didnt invent the pistol.
Out of curiousity which part of Europe do your friends come from ?
I wasnt around in the 1920s myself but I have known quite a few who were (mostly dead now bless em)and I havent personally come across ANY,not a single one who blamed The U.S, for extending WW1,the idea seems illogical to me as well.
Im not saying that there were’nt any who did ,just that Ive never ,ever met any or have even met anyone who has .
As to the rather all encompassing “The Brits have a long standing tradition of blaming their allies for much as possible that went wrong” well I must admit that I thought I was pretty much aware of most,if not all widespread British traditions official and unofficial but thats a new one on me !
Admitedly the French pissed us off during WWI when their troops mutinied and refused to fight ,resulting in the British army having to take over their commitments as well as carrying out their own.
And again in WW2 the French got crossed off of our christmas card list when we had an agreement written in stone between our two nations that there would be NO seperate negotiations with the enemy.
The French took"Under no circumstances will either of our two nations make a seperate peace with the Germans "to actually mean that “We will surrender to the Germans and only tell the British after it has become an accomplished fact”
(Which will leave the "Rost Bifs "in a pretty sticky situation tactically. TeeHeeHeee)
And yet again when the intact and very formidible French navy(Harboured in N.Africa) was in serious danger of being taken into the service of the Germans the French refused to scuttle their ships, let alone give them to their previous ally who was engaged in a single handed fight to the death with THEIR enemy.
Though I believe that they were pretty pissed off themselves when the R.N. then went on to sink them ,an act we took no pleasure in.
But I wouldnt count that as "having a long tradition of "and so on and so on…
The only criticism I have ever heard Brits of that era make about the Yanks is the length of time it took for them to join in the conflict.
The Yanks are ,and have always been, our closest friends and long may it continue to be so.
Perfidious of them, indeed, but did they not fight an action allowing you guys to escape at Dunkergue? 
I can confirm this one goes back at least to the days of Napoleon, when the British stole the rightful victory from the Prussians, who really earned it.
See, that’s exactly what we’re talking about. It wasn’t our conflict until Hitler and Tojo made it so. Half of it was Britain’s fault (cough Neville-let’s-sacrifice-all-strategic-advantage-Chamberlain cough)
No, we haven’t been. In fatc, England has PO’d us so many times we’ve just given up trying to straighten out your leadership. We’re friendly now, but about half of our mutual history has been in quasi-cold war. Let’s see now: the War of 1812, the antebellum, the entire period from the Civil War to WWI, and the aftermath thereof. That’s a pretty good long stretch of time.
I’m not saying I hate England or the English. But let’s not pretend your nation has really been our bestest friend. We saved your wars with no real advantage to ourselves twice, and Enlgand has sold us out on several memorable occaisions. It’s not pretty, but it’s life. We don’t particularly mind, now, but don’t come saying we’ve always been the bestest buddies, either. The British have acted pretty mercenary towards the United States in the past - except when they needed something from us.