britain saved the USA during ww2

britian saved the US during ww2

  • Total voters
    24
tom prendergast said:
Just a few things worth noting. Two of the key personnel on The Manhattan Project namely Sir James Chadwick and Niels Bohr were only there because Britain was not eliminated from the War by the Germans.

James Chadwick who won a Nobel Prize for discovering the neutron was head of the top secret British nuclear directorate codenamed Tube Alloys
A delegation (the Tizard Mission) was sent in September 1940 to North America to exchange technology in all fields, such as radar, jet engines and nuclear research. They also explored the possibility of relocating the British military research facilities in North America, out of reach of the German bombers. One of the key technologies handed over was the gas diffusion process for purifying uranium, using uranium hexaflouride (UF6), into weapons grade U235 without which the Little Boy bomb couid not have been developed. His work on the neutron led directly to the production of the man made elements of which plutonium is the most famous.

Niels Bohr was a brilliant Danish physicist who the British and Americans were terrified would be press ganged by the Germans into working on their nuclear programme alongside Werner Heisenberg. He was smuggled out of Denmark, by way of Sweden, in the bomb bay of a Mosquito fighter by the British and whisked off to Los Alamos post haste in 1943. I am just reading the book American Prometheus about Robert Oppenheimer and the Manhattan project and it tells the story of how it almost ended in tragedy as Bohr did not don his oxygen equipment as instructed, and passed out at high altitude. He would have died had not the pilot, surmising from Bohr's lack of response to intercom communication that he had lost consciousness, descended to a lower altitude for the remainder of the flight. Bohr's comment was that he had slept like a baby for the entire flight.

I contend that the Manhattan Project would have either failed or have been severely set back without the contributions of these two great men. I should also point out that the Germans would have dearly loved to get their hands on the gas diffusion technology.
Click to expand...

Interesting history that contributes to my assertion that Britain was more dependent on us than we of them.
 
tom prendergast said:
93% of all casualties suffered by the German forces were on the Eastern Front. Not a statistic that you hear very often quoted in the US.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I've yet to meet anyone who asserts that the Russians did less ground fighting of Germany than America. I'm sure they're out there, but most of what I've heard is nothing but solemn reverence for our former red brothers.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
And all the material we supplied the Russian and British so they could continue their war effort? Our landing in North Africa and then in Italy?
Click to expand...

All the material you supplied at an extortionate rate. America made a tidy profit out of the British struggle whilst it was sitting on the fence.

As for North Africa, we had that pretty much wrapped up after el Alemain.
 
AnyOldIron said:
All the material you supplied at an extortionate rate. America made a tidy profit out of the British struggle whilst it was sitting on the fence.

As for North Africa, we had that pretty much wrapped up after el Alemain.
Click to expand...

Remember the Sherman tanks that were supplied by the US in North Africa, they were known as Ronsons because they would always light up the first time.
 
Yurt said:
its not necessarily a current event, but someone has currently made this claim.....tom prendergast has continually run from the calls for proof or an explanation as to how he reached such a conclusion.....

i say, let's give him his own thread, as i am highly interested to hear this very unusual take on history....and to make a poll....afterall....polls are fun!

tom....enlighten us as to how the british saved us during ww2......i respectfully give you the floor and since you demand a "please".....please enlighten us.....take as much time as you need
Click to expand...

I'll take this for my countryman.

Lets use a few hypotheticals...

Imagine if the RAF hadn't defeated the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain, Operation Sealion had gone ahead, and Britain had folded a la France. It wouldn't have, but we are playing a hypothetical game. A significant portion of the Royal Navy would have been in home docks to defend the islands and the Germans would have captured this.

When the Japanese attacked the US in the Pacific, the US would have faced enemies on both its Pacific and Atlantic coasts.

So what would the Americans do? Would they make peace with Germany to enable it to fight Japan? That would have been a death sentence to the old world's Jews and other minorities. But would it save America?

In reality, the timescale of Operation Barbarossa had been put back because of the defeat of Operation Sealion, but in our hypothetical this didn't happen. Operation Barbarossa went ahead on time. Germany reached the Soviet capital before the winter kicked in.

So with Germany consolidating its position in Europe, America is exhausted after defeating Japan. Its military is spread across the Pacific. And then Germany would attack. Without the pressure of the RAF and USAAF flying from Britain, German weaponary experiments would have progressed unchallenged.

Would the US survive?

But that didn't happen. Britain prevented it. Despite its military being spread across the Empire, Britain went toe to toe with Nazi Germany and beat them.

Personally I would have voted no. Whilst I regret American profiteering that broke Britain whilst it was fighting the good fight, WWII was a co-operative event. It was a time before the American national ego disappeared up its own backside, and Britain became such a sap.
 
What saved the Brits was Hitler's insane dedicated following of one fortune teller that convinced him to open another front before he had Britain under control.
 
tom prendergast said:
Remember the Sherman tanks that were supplied by the US in North Africa, they were known as Ronsons because they would always light up the first time.
Click to expand...
Which was the same tank that we used. And it was far and away a better tank then what you guys were putting to the field.

As for the 'extortionist' prices we gave the Brits and Russians goods, we gave you perfectly good battleships for useless islands.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
Which was the same tank that we used. And it was far and away a better tank then what you guys were putting to the field.

As for the 'extortionist' prices we gave the Brits and Russians goods, we gave you perfectly good battleships for useless islands.
Click to expand...

The US did not really start using tanks until late 1943, by which time, they had learnt some of the lessons about its drawbacks from the British in the North Africa campaign. One of the major improvements was the introduction of the larger T23 turret, with a high-velocity 76 mm gun in early 1944 which was then used in the Normandy invasion.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
What saved the Brits was Hitler's insane dedicated following of one fortune teller that convinced him to open another front before he had Britain under control.
Click to expand...

There were sound military reasons why they did what they did, it was more a combination of the worst winter in 40 years and Hitler's insistence on capturing the Caucasus before removing Stalin's regime in Moscow which did for them.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/invadingrussia.aspx
 
Last edited:
I voted no. Britain made us by crying for help. If they didn't need a big brother to fight their fight our industry would not have exploded up. As thanks we should get some of their bithes braces for those god awfull teeth.
 
Topspin said:
I voted no. Britain made us by crying for help. If they didn't need a big brother to fight their fight our industry would not have exploded up. As thanks we should get some of their bithes braces for those god awfull teeth.
Click to expand...

I get the impression that you are universally detested, I can't think why you seem such a likeable and amiable sort of a chap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top