Buchanan and some US Paleo-Cons make that sort of argument, let Hitler and Stalin duke it out...but sadly that idea just doesn't work.  In fact, by 1949 the Us and Britain might face a truly AWFUL world.

 

Hitler could have beaten Stalin....Not in the Long Run but in 1940 or 1941 or even 1942, possibly.  It was British/US Lend-Lease that kept the USSR in the war.  Had there been no Middle East Campaign, no Western Campaign, no Bomber Offensive from 1943 on, the Nazi's could have defeated the Soviets.  It was a close-run thing in 1941 and might have turned out very differently.

 

My point is that in 1949 we could see a Nazi Germany (Hitler) stretching from France the to Ukraine, a Soviet Union (Stalin) stretching over the current Russia, plus the 'Stans and Caucasus, A Chinese Communist State (Mao), and a Japanese East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (Tojo). 

 

Bottom-Line: If we had left Europe to the Europeans we might face a world that had Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Tojo, leaving FDR and Churchill as very weak players in the game.

Well British Lion, sorry, I'm not really a chauvinist, but let's be honest...a significant portion of Britain's tank force was AMERICAN, had it not been for AMERICAN tank deliveries in 1942 Britain might have lost it's Middle East position, I'd bet that a majority of the Combat Aircraft in Britain, after Jan 1944 were AMERICAN, certainly approximately 60% of the Combat Power on the Continent 1944-45 was AMERICAN (by that I mean US forces)....If it had not been for America Britain would have quite possibly lost the war....Not be conquered by the Germans, after the Battle of Britain and then June 1941 not really a possibility, but Britain would have lost its oil and would have been in a position wherein it could not possibly defeat Germany, and so it would have been left with the alternatives of continuing a hopeless fight or seeking an accommodation with Germany.

Bottom-Line: Remove the US from EITHER World War and Germany prospers, relatively or absolutely, it was the US entry that was DECISIVE to Germany's defeat in both cases. 

Remove Britain or Russia and you lose WW2 also. Remove Britain or France from WW1 and that one's lost. I don't see your point. I'm not dismissing America's contribution or arguing who contributed more. All I'm saying is that it was a JOINT effort, with all 3 nations pulling their weight and winning the war. Belittling one nations contribution is not a good way to make friends.

 

Look at France's recent history:

 

 

 

 

A conquered britain means it becomes impossible for the US to liberate Europe. How do you propose the US will cross the atlantic in the face of an unbeaten U-boat arm (the battle of the Atlantic was one by a majortiy of BRITISH forces), carrying a large enough invasion force and enough aircraft to take on an unbeaten Luftwaffe, and resupply said invasion force with the Atlantic behind them. Also bearing in mind that Germany will control the majority of oil supplies in the middle east.

 

Face it, you might have been the dominant force in europe in those later years of the war, but you wouldn't have won the war without us. Also, it becomes very easy to accuse european politicians of appeasement in the face of Hitler's threats in the 30s, fair enough. After all, if only they had joined the US in it's affirmative action against the Nazis, which I believe was labelled splendid isolation. Face it, no one comes out of the rise of facism smelling of roses, It might not have been in your own back yard but it would have been supremely naive of the US politcians to assume that a Hitler dominated Europe would not ahve affected the states one little bit surely?

Also, the 100 days offensive was carried out largely by the BEF, with the british 1st, 3rd and 4th Armies breaking the Hindenberg line after the decisive British commonwealth victory at Amiens. Sure the US might have become the dominant force after 1919, but the war was over by then. While not wishing to belittle the US participation in the fighting - particularly in shoring up the French during and after the german 1918 offensives, I would argue that it was the British contribution to WW1 that was decisive, remove them from the scene and you remove the largest combat effective force in 1918, or half of the allied combat power on the western front before 1917.

Again this isn't meant as chauvinism, "You Europeans aren't SPIT!"  But,

 Prometheus, you neglect to mention that the BEF had at least one US Infantry Division in it, that division totaling 28,000 men...meaning that one US division equaled just about a then-corps-sized BEF force.  Further, Prometheus, you'll note I say Britain could not be conquered after the failure of the Battle of Britain and then the beginning of Barbarossa, merely that without the United States Britain could not WIN...without the hundreds of tanks we supplied to Britain from 1941 on Britain would have lost the Middle East to the DAK, and without that oil and without any US forces Britain would have been forced to fight on hopelessly or seek an accommodation with Germany.  All that is painfully obvious, via Nihon Kaigun.com and Paul Johnson you can see that the US represented well over half of the global war-fighting potential BY ITSELF.  Britain represented, IIRC, about 10% and Germany about 12%...without oil and without the US Britain could NEVER have defeated Germany.  Yes, Britain would be safe from invasion and conquest, but it would have to acquiesce to German domination of the Continent, and a subsequent loss of Global Power as Germany and the Europe surpassed it in economic power.

 

To BL and Prometheus more generally, that chart says it all...the US supplied Britain with dozens of escort carriers, and probably several dozens if not HUNDREDS of destroyer escorts , thousands of tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles, thousands of aircraft, supplied the USSR similarly and supplied the Free French, and many of the Western "exiled" armies, all the while producing the largest Air Force and Navy on the globe and fielding a large capable ground force.  Basically, the supply arrow pointed one way, YOU guys got US gear, and the US received very little...It's the truth, the US supplied its own Army, Marines, Air Force, and Navy AND yours...it may have been a team effort but without one player there would have been no victory.

 

In both World Wars the US was the difference between Allied victory and Allied defeat.  In the First World War the Allied "defeat" would have been more qualified, I don't argue that.  The AEF represented 1-2 million fresh, troops willing to fight on the Western Front.  A resource that the Central Powers and the Entente no longer possessed, those millions of troops represented the difference between the Kaiser winning a "Technical knock-out" and the Kaiser losing. 

 

By 1918 the Central Powers had defeated Russia, but were unable to defeat the Entente Powers.  However, the Entente was obviously incapable of defeating the Central Powers.  The war was being fought IN FRANCE, the Kaiser had bargaining chips and the Entente did not.  Had there been no US entry into the First World War the Kaiser could have sought a negotiated end to the war, leaving Germany, relatively, better off than the Entente.  Germany would have the gains of Brest-Litovsk and France would have simply regained the territory it lost in 1914.  Germany would have gained, relatively, more than France did from the war, a technical knock-out for Germany.

 

  WITH the addition of US troops the Allied Powers were capable of rolling the Kaiser's forces back to the Rhine, abrogating Brest-Litovsk, and imposing the Versailles Treaty, signifying Germany's loss in the First World War.  The US and the AEF made that difference, between a negotiated withdrawal from France and gains in the East to the defeat of Wilhelmine Germany.

 

In the Second World War, it is even more clear that the US was vital to defeat of Germany...No US; no Stewarts, Grants, and Shermans to hold the line against Rommel, and no victory at El Alamein.  No thousands of tanks to the USSR (10% Soviet total force), no thousands of Aircraft to the USSR (16% of total force), with Britain out of the war after the Gazala Battles of 1942, and no Lend Lease, the USSR surrenders or is defeated.  No US, in the war Britain has far fewer ships to fight the Battle of the Atlantic, far fewer aircraft to put over those convoys, far less food, fuel and ammunition, and almost nothing over to equip the Dutch, Norwegians, and Free French Forces.

Again, this isn't meant as denigrating Britain in either war or France in the First ) France has d@mend little to be proud of in the Second), but a fairly straightforward statement oft he truth.  Thank you for Churchill, thank you for RAF Fighter Command, thank you for holding the line for 13 long months, thank you f

Prometheus:

Technology:

Thank you for the cavity magnetron and the help in the Manhattan Project, thanks for the Merlin engine..now ask yourself this?  What value is technology unless it's made into combat power?  Germany had lots of technology, too...but not enough of it was transformed from a neat idea into a usable weapon.  Britain had some great ideas, ideas don't and didn't defeat the Wehrmacht, tanks, plances and rifles did and do. 

 

First World War:

Yes, the BEF advanced, as did the French, AFTER being reinforced by 1.2 million Yank Troops of the AEF!  You certainly hadn't been advancing much PRIOR to that had you?  By 1918 the Kaiser Heer was fought out...thanks to you guys on the Western Front, whereas the Allies had 1.2 million EXTRA, fresh combat troops...we made the difference..convinced Ludendorff that the war was lost.  Without us, you guys on the Western Front, strike a deal, Germany withdraws from France, takes a dominant role in Belgium and keeps the gains of Brest-Litovsk...making Germany a relative winner in that version of the First World War.

 

Second World War:

My point is that Lend-Lease kept both Britain AND the USSR in the war.  If you Brit's hadn't received hundreds of tanks from 1941 on, yes well-crewed by Brit's, but a tank crew with no tank ain't a tank, you'd have lost in the Middle East and probably would have had to make a peace with Germany.  No Britain, no Lend-Lease, Germany wins in the East...the US was VITAL to both projects Lend-Lease and a British victory in the Middle East.  Bottom-Line: US productive capacity kept both Britain and the USSR in the fight.

 

Final note: I wouldn't talk about British tactics being the source of much of anything good in the desert, were I you.  The British stank at fighting the Germans, at the tactical level.....JFC Fuller and the Tankers of the Inter-War Period got things dreadfully wrong for Britain and it took you years to sort out their mistakes.