UK staging Overlord without US?

[ickysdad]

Oh I wasn't trying to be disrespectful to your source don't get me wrong. I also agree that the world wars elimanated alot of the US's competition . . I think I need to rephrase my argument to mean that we were well on our way to being "dominant" or "top dog" before WW1 even began, the numbers were there even in 1913 to show it however I agree that the 2 world wars made us into the power we are today or were in 1946 BUT the US was becoming "great" even before the world wars began.

There are alot of US posters who say we saved the world in both world wars when actually we were an important member of the 'side' that saved the world however some non-US posters say we were or are great only because of the world wars and I fell that certainly isn't true either.

[Guest aevans]

...saved the world...

 

Ummm...what precisely did we save the world from? Most places I've been they view both world wars as Europeans (including Americans) or European cadets (the Japanese) fighting over who got to screw everyone else. I really can't say they're wrong, from their perspective. IMO we really should avoid referencing our owm propaganda in serious discussion.

[Heirophant]

The US economy was more autarkic in 1913 than today, so had less influence on the world economy relative to its size, & as the various figures batted around here show, there were a few countries with GDPs of half or nearly so the US level, whereas today, the only country at around that level is China - and it's only recently got there.

 

-------

Certainly, the USA was on the up, but I'm sure the extent of its future dominance would have been surprising to most people in 1913. That dominance was to a large degree the result of the two world wars, which had disastrous effects on the economies of most other major countries, not only due to the direct effects of the wars, but the political aftermath of WW1.

 

Without the wars, the USA would still have had the largest economy, by a great margin, ever since 1913. But that margin would almost certainly have been much, much smaller than it actually has been.

 

 

Yeah, I think this is what most people mean.

 

Sure, the US would have dominated the 20th Century anyway, but not nearly to the degree it did without the World Wars. I mean, in 1950, for example, ~50% of global industrial production was in the United States! This would represent the all-time peak of American global latent power (that amount of power which, should a country choose to do so, it could deploy in all-out war) vis-a-vis the rest of the world.

 

It is utterly unimaginable that the United States, or any country, will ever again be so dominant. A World War 3 in which the United States is once again the sole un-destroyed power is just impossible, unless of course it were simply not involved at all. But to say that without the World Wars the U.S. would not have had the most latent power in the last century is just plain silly - it's just that other nations would have been rather powerful also, and so it would have clearly been a "multipolar" world, rather than a unipolar one or bipolar one.

 

Of course, it should be pointed out that the American share of latent power has been in (albeit slow) decline since 1950, but that's just a consequence of the sheer unsustainable imbalance of the situation.

 

Another point which must be noted is that circa 1880 - 1913, the United States and Germany were the two fastest growing large economies in the world, far outpacing the industrial pioneer, Britain and the slow-growing France. Russia, Italy and Austria-Hungary were even slower growing, though there was a good bit of reform in Russia so it actually was better-off by 1913 than say Austria-Hungary in industrial latent potential.

 

Japan was the fastest growing economy on earth, outsripping even America and Germany by a percentage point or two. But Japan was such a comparatively backward and miniscule economy that it's total weight was ignored by many (however, it was the industrial titan of the East, India and China being non-players).

 

America's already large economy and rapid growth made it quite clear, except to the highly deluded, that the United States was going to to be the most powerful nation. Germany was clearly going to be "top dog" in Europe, again because already weighty, and growing fast to boot - well on the way to being the second most powerful nation on earth.

 

World War 2 was different again, and the rankings were different.

 

Take the example above, with China today. Though the Clinton and Bush years have been very high growth years for us (America), China has grown to maybe 50% of our total in just the last 2 decades, starting from a very low base. The point being that relative latent power is fluid, with or without World Wars to make matters unpredictable.

 

 

Ummm...what precisely did we save the world from? Most places I've been they view both world wars as Europeans (including Americans) or European cadets (the Japanese) fighting over who got to screw everyone else. I really can't say they're wrong, from their perspective. IMO we really should avoid referencing our owm propaganda in serious discussion.

 

 

An interesting choice of words, calling the Japanese "European cadets." I tend to agree, somewhat, in that the Japanese were self-consciously emulating the Europeans, discarding their cultural ties with China, Mongolia/Manchuria, and Korea. To this day, most Westerners and Japanese accept that Japan has very little in common culturally with other Asian nations - though how true this really is, I don't know.

[Guest aevans]

An interesting choice of words, calling the Japanese "European cadets."

 

I chose it because the Japanese drive to adopt European styles of administration, European economics, and European technology, culminating in their participation against China during the Boxer Rebellion, had qualified them in their own minds as at least cadet members of the imperialist club. They therefore proceeded to act as if that was the consensus opinion among the rest of the club members. (Whether it was or wasn't is debatable, but the Japanese certainly scored high on self-actualization in correcting what they would have regarded as mistaken opinions on the subject.)

Edited July 1, 2008 by aevans

[Guest aevans]

To this day, most Westerners and Japanese accept that Japan has very little in common culturally with other Asian nations - though how true this really is, I don't know.

 

Japan is a cultural law unto itself. It values teamwork and group-oriented discipline, but worships individual excellence in pursuit of the group objective. The perfect Japanese is someone who respects authority and refuses to think of himself, but at the same time puts everything he has into being the absolute best at his metier. (This is probably why they love baseball so much -- it is absolutely a team game, but it has so much room for individual stars.)

Edited July 1, 2008 by aevans

[ickysdad]

Something else that needs to be observed in rating economic power is like the example of the US verse China today . China has 1.2 billion people not let's say for argument's purpose they have a per capita income of $15,000.00 that would equal a GNP of around 18 trillion. Now for comparison's sake let's the last time I read the US had a per capita income of around $40,000.00 with a population of around 300,000,000 that comes to a GNP of around 12 triilion . Now clearly in my example China has the absolute advantage in total GNP but just who would be the best off economically? I also seen an article awhile back that said the US still had 22-23% of the world's GDP(and 30% of it's wealth) while China was adjusted back to about 9.8% & India around about 6%(????) of the world's GDP. The US although slumping industrially since 1950 still produces 21% of the world's products still top dog. Does anybody have any other info???

 

 

Now on the US in 1913 I guess it's whoose figures you accept as per per capita income, GNP and such. However even if we accept Madsen's figures the US still has some extremely big advantages over everybody else such as it's exremely advantageous location, it's extreme self sufficentcy, excellent internal lines and large geographical size

[ickysdad]

Well we all can feel sorry for the US !!!! lol !!!!!

 

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/04/world-...-economies.html

 

http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/06/1...h-similar-gdps/

 

http://www.exxun.com/afd/ec_gdp_official_exch_rate/wr_1.html

Edited July 2, 2008 by ickysdad

[Colin Williams]

I imagine without the world wars that in the 1950s the relative economic state of the major countries would look something like the late 1990s, with Russia being a complete wildcard and the future of Austria-Hungary impossible to predict. It seems to me that the impact of two world wars oallowed the US to move ahead without much competition in the 1920s and from 1945 to 1960.

[Colin Williams]

Another line of thought I was thinking about is if the British just completely push the Italians out of Africa before Rommel comes,i.e. don't waste time or resources on the Greek campaign.That could free-up alot of manpower & resources . Also what if the French fight on from thier colonies instead of dropping out of the war completely in 1940? Of course that means probably no LL from the US.

 

I used to favor that as a potential scenario for getting the Axis out of North Africa, but, after years of reading various accounts and thinking about lessons from other conflicts, it seems to me that the logistics of the operation were just too challenging. As long as Hitler was committed to sending German forces to support the Italians, it became very difficult for the British to move enough forces through Cyrenaica into Tripolitania fast enough to expel both the Germans and Italians. Even the Italians alone would have presented a difficult problem in the absence of a complete moral collapse.

 

OTOH, my scenario is also a bit of a reach. Based on accounts from the time, I believe relief from the pressure to send troops, material and supplies to Burma and Malaya would have enabled Auchinleck to secure Cyrenaica from Rommel's quick counter-attack. The problem then becomes whether the Commonwealth could muster enough military power to drive into Tripolitania and also land in French North Africa. I don't know, but it seems plausible, particularly if Weygand was still in command in French North Africa (I forget when he was recalled).

[swerve]

I imagine without the world wars that in the 1950s the relative economic state of the major countries would look something like the late 1990s, with Russia being a complete wildcard and the future of Austria-Hungary impossible to predict. It seems to me that the impact of two world wars oallowed the US to move ahead without much competition in the 1920s and from 1945 to 1960.

 

Russia & A_H unpredictable for political reasons. Both were doing well economically before the war. Russian industry was booming, but there was a large traditional economy (subsistence agriculture, handicrafts, etc.) which was slow-growing, & reduced the average. If trends had continued, the weight of the fast-growing modern sector would have increased, & raised the average. Some parts of the Russian Empire, e.g. Estonia & Latvia, followed by Finland, then Poland, were prospering.

 

A-H had similiarities, Overall industrial growth was quite fast, but economic performance was very variable, both geographically & sectorally. The Czech lands & what is now Austria were indistinguishable from Germany or France, economically. Central & W. Hungary weren't far behind. Galicia was poor, economically backward compared to Russian Poland, & growing slower than the Imperial average. T

[ickysdad]

I used to favor that as a potential scenario for getting the Axis out of North Africa, but, after years of reading various accounts and thinking about lessons from other conflicts, it seems to me that the logistics of the operation were just too challenging. As long as Hitler was committed to sending German forces to support the Italians, it became very difficult for the British to move enough forces through Cyrenaica into Tripolitania fast enough to expel both the Germans and Italians. Even the Italians alone would have presented a difficult problem in the absence of a complete moral collapse.

 

OTOH, my scenario is also a bit of a reach. Based on accounts from the time, I believe relief from the pressure to send troops, material and supplies to Burma and Malaya would have enabled Auchinleck to secure Cyrenaica from Rommel's quick counter-attack. The problem then becomes whether the Commonwealth could muster enough military power to drive into Tripolitania and also land in French North Africa. I don't know, but it seems plausible, particularly if Weygand was still in command in French North Africa (I forget when he was recalled).

Yes but if the British would have just driven a little farther then El Aghelia to Tripoli there would have been no port for the Germans to debark unto. If I'm not wrong Greece kept the British from doing it , I'm pretty sure Wavell wanted to go ahead and pull it off.

[ickysdad]

Russia & A_H unpredictable for political reasons. Both were doing well economically before the war. Russian industry was booming, but there was a large traditional economy (subsistence agriculture, handicrafts, etc.) which was slow-growing, & reduced the average. If trends had continued, the weight of the fast-growing modern sector would have increased, & raised the average. Some parts of the Russian Empire, e.g. Estonia & Latvia, followed by Finland, then Poland, were prospering.

 

A-H had similiarities, Overall industrial growth was quite fast, but economic performance was very variable, both geographically & sectorally. The Czech lands & what is now Austria were indistinguishable from Germany or France, economically. Central & W. Hungary weren't far behind. Galicia was poor, economically backward compared to Russian Poland, & growing slower than the Imperial average. T

Just how good was Russia's infrastructure? They might have had to make some very serious upgrades. I'm thinking the US had about as many miles of railroad as the rest of the world combined but the Russians weren't all that well placed in this regard and they were a big geographical country like the US .

[swerve]

Just how good was Russia's infrastructure? They might have had to make some very serious upgrades. I'm thinking the US had about as many miles of railroad as the rest of the world combined but the Russians weren't all that well placed in this regard and they were a big geographical country like the US .

 

Of course they'd have had to make serious upgrades. And they were. Building railways like mad, up to 1914, for example. Same with everything else. Massive wartime destruction, & post-war economic dislocation. Took until 1928 to get the network back to where it was at the start of the war. Lost 15 years of infrastructure development & economic growth.

 

Like everything else, infrastructure investment was patchy, though. Inland waterways, ports, & worst of all roads, suffered from inadequate investment. I ought to read up more on other areas.

[McFire]

How hard would it have been for the UK/Commonwealth to stage Overlord if the US doesn't get involved in WW2?

 

 

Sticking with the original question and without a lot of research going in tangent directions, an Overlord without the US would simply have been impossible. Look at D-Day and imagine it with NO US involvement. It would have been nothing more than a larger version of Dieppe (even though Dieppe was mostly a probe to check German defenses, etc). Add to that, there would have been no constant giant formation daylight bomber attacks on German targets in the years previous to Overlord. Also, the Battle of the Atlantic would still have been raging. In addition, the Soviets would have had a much harder time without the Lend/Lease program. IMO, without the US, the UK/Commonwealth forces would, at best, have been able to get a stalemate, with Germany eventually controlling the continent.

[binder001]

Back to "Overlord" with out the USA - no way! Not because the British (and whoever were with them in this scenario) couldn't, but because there was no enthusiasm for such a project from Churchill and the Imperial General Staff. Churchill would have been in the Balkans or nibbling away at the periphery of the German conquests. The British knew that invading France to attack Germany was the way to win, but the horrible visions of combat in France just 25 years earlier made them less than enthusiastic about going straight into the Continent.

 

Gary