True, I meant dedicated aircraft and landing craft for the invasion of England.  Germany certainly had a massive production capacity and built armory/reserves throughout the mainland that nobody was going to defeat alone.

The German nuke program wasn't really going anywhere.

TL;DR

Without Lend Lease, the Soviets retake Poland. Nothing further.

Without day light precision bombing, Me-262’s devastate the night bombing raids and V-2’s blanket England.

Then, there’s the nuke question...

TC

BTW, I'm grateful for the time when Britain stood alone.  Remember, at that time there was a Soviet-Nazi Non-Aggression Treaty. Only the RAF and the RN kept Germany out (but I acknowledge that Germany would have loved an alliance or peace with England).

That said, Britain was pushing back after El Alamein, but it should not be discounted the significance of Lend Lease during this period.  Fuel, food, vehicles and airplanes in abundance.

@nick1983 do you have any good books to recommend on this subject?
War is the continuation of politics by other means.

I'd be curious to what the agreed peace terms would be. We already know about the offer proposed and rejected by Churchill at the beginning of the Battle of Britain. There is the claim that Rudolf Hess was actually delivering a peace proposal when he flew to Scotland in 1941 just before Barbarossa. What would an offer accepted by the post-Churchill UK government look like? We can really just speculate about that since obviously there is no way to know.

This is kind of where I'm at on it*, FWIW.

I'm always open to well researched information to change my opinion though.

*But with gooder grammer

Wow, this would be a fantastic topic to speculate on.

The lack of any synchronization between Germany's, Italy's, and Japan's strategy would make this a very interesting hypothetical question to discuss.

I will discount any argument about Lend Lease material aid to the British, as equipping a force is far from helping win a war. Otherwise too many countries that exist as little more than global arms dealers can claim victories they didn't achieve.

So I'll tie down US involvement in the war against the Axis to when the US was first truly involved.

First, the Battle of the Atlantic. Long before any ground forces landed anywhere in Europe, we were sending in ship after ship of supplies to keep Britain alive, and getting our asses kicked for it (first couple years we werent doing all that well). How was the German Kriegsmarine so capable of hurting us? Because they were largely untouched by the British Royal Navy. So in that sector and scope of warfare, especially considering how important it was for Britain to keep the Atlantic supply lines open and protected, they were not even remotely winning.

The British isles itself were at that time free from threat of invasion, so maybe that can be claimed as a victory in if itself, as they were surviving. But that's pretty lame, so fuck that. Surviving isn't winning. Another example of not winning. Especially considering how often they were still being bombed.

British RAF bomber attacks on Germany until the Combined Bombing Offensive were a lot of things. Calling them effective is highly questionable, stating that Bomber Harris was winning anything is a bad punch line to a worse joke. So not winning there either. More like a continuous set of extremely Pyrrhic victories or outright, bloody losses.

Last, the grand North African theater of 1942, where a whopping three total German divisions, with six Italian divisions, had spent the previous year embarrassing the British. Then going on, first, with the major loss of the port fortress ofTobruk following the field defeat at Gazala. Followed up by the deep drive toward Alexandria when Rommel blew off his entire chain of command, outrunning his supply lines and air support. chasing the Britsh Eighth Army to near the Nile in Egypt before he was finally stopped.

He is where it gets tricky. Rommel would never had that level of success thus far if not for a US Army liaison officer transmiiting British plans, locations, and supply convoys on a compromised code that's the Italians then Germans broke. Its hard to do well when the enemy know more about the British than most of the British do. So bonus for the British. Lets toss the Brits a serious "My bad!"

But then there is the fact that British did receive a MAJOR resupply of US equipment before both battles of El Alamein, which likely decided that battle. So they can stop being petty, we paid them back. Even steven again.

The British did break Ultra, and that alone probably guaranteed winning the war eventually. And even if they were a little weaker without US equipment, they'd still likely have beaten the severely overextended and blind Panzer Army Africa. That's got to be said. Thanks to the Poles and British, we could read their mail the entire war.

Now to the meat. Did the US Army invading North Africa really play adecisive role in North Africa or were the British already winning the war?

Not really. Because Africa didn't really matter.

To put in context of what winning looks like and doesn't, the British victory at 1st El Alamein was July 1942. British victory at 2nd El Alamein was in November 1942, same month the US Army landed in N. Africa. Remember, a whopping three German divisions were involved in first battle, raised to a whopping five, with two panzer divisions, for the second battle. Pittance. A joke. They had more divisions convalescing in France getting blow jobs after being mauled in the winter of 41-42 in Russia.

Lets check out the Eastern Front, about same time. Operation Blue kicked off summer of 1942 to take the Caucuses region of Russia. German order of battle for Army Group South is massive. I can't remember how many divisions but its safe to say that its twenty times larger than what's in North Africa isn't preposterous. A metric shit ton of panzer divisions, which are the only ones that really need to be worried about during maneuver warfare. Lots and lots of aircraft, which are barely at El Alamein (Rommel drove too far beyond their airfields to be properly supported by what they did have).

German is still doing okay in Russia up to the point that 2nd El Alamein happens. Not great, but no guarantee offensive failed yet. They don't even freak out after losing El Alamein, while it was a big propaganda defeat it wasn't that big of a deal because Monty didn't and couldn't exploit it, allowing Rommel to escape west to Tunisia with a good chunk of his army, to link up with more German divisions to fight the US Army. Barely a full actual army involved in that theater, most troops by far are Italian.

My point is that Germany didn't give a shit until December 1942. When Sixth Army was encircled at Stalingrad, when Hitler had his "oh shit this is really bad" moment and finally activated all of Germany for a total war mobilization. Before that, N.Africa was an expensive sideshow only initially authorized to help out an Axis partner that got out of control because a poorly supervised general with more balls than brains was in command of an expeditionary force he had no right commanding, outside his buddy buddy relationship with Hitler.

TLDR, No, the British hadn't won the war by the time the US got involved.

You have a few things out of order that I'd like to address.

Rommel was never supposed to drive into Egypt, let alone the Middle East (where most oil was still not discovered until the 50-60s, with still lots of other British forces there). He was there with the tiny Africa Corps (three German divisions, while 189 were in Russia) simply to assist the Italians. In fact, German air support did far more to ensure victory against the British than his meager ground troops did.

There was no plan or concept of operations to drive into the Middle East for oil. Rommel defeated the Eighth Army at Gazala and then took Tobruk in June 1942. At that point he was supposed to stop, as he was ordered by his superiors in Africa (Italian general acting as theater commander, Kesselring as the OB South commander, the entire OKH and OKW HQs back in Germany). Why stop? Because there were not supplies enough to drive deeper. But Rommel blew them all off and charged into Egypt hoping not to go to the Middle East, but to take Alexandria, HQ of British Forces in Egypt (Eighth Army HQ).

So Tobruk fell in late June 1942, the 1st Battle of El Alamein (which stopped the Germans, but didn't beat them) was only a few weeks later. During that short time period after Rommel charged east, a few people in Germany toyed with the idea that Rommel might be able to eventually seize the Middle East and link up with the successful Army Group South after having taken the Caucasus. But there was never any serious contemplation of it, as it was a 1,900 mile drive, which was longer than any portion of the Eastern Front from German controlled Poland (which could barely be supplied). There most certainly was no plan for it.

There was a plan to grab oil, it was Operation Blue, the big German summer offensive of 1942, which was planned in late winter and early spring of '42, well before Rommel won his decisive victories at Gazala and Tobruk. It was that operation that was supposed to net Germany its oil, as well as take it away from Russia (a win win). It didn't fail until late fall and early winter of '42.

North Africa was never more than a side show for nearly everyone involved. It had zero long term strategic benefits for any participant in the war, minus Italy, who actually had a good reason for being there (cheap wheat). It was even useless for the British, as the only thing of value was the Suez, but that was useless until the Mediterranean was secure, which didn't happen for years to come.

You also wrote:

"It wasn't until the invasion of Italy that the Americans really began to contribute something meaningful on land in the European theater. Due to the complete incompetence of American General Clark, who could set up a shit show in a brewery, the Italian campaign was a complete abortion."

Clark was far out of his element commanding an army, but most of the problems in Italy weren't his fault. Nobody in the US Army even wanted to be there, it was Churchill's idea to ignore France entirely and try to enter Germany from the "Soft Underbelly," which was idiotic since anyone who looks at a topo map of Italy will know that its the worst place to attempt to attack. The US had been pressing to invade France in '42, the British fought to stop that (and Operation Torch was the result). They wanted to invade France in '43, the British fought to stop it (Husky and Avalanche were the result). They wanted to invade France in '44, the British tried to stop it, finally the US was a stronger Allied partner and Churchill couldn't stop it. Which is the only reason Normandy happened, and we didn't try to fight up a dozen major mountains just to get to the Alps, then fight our way through there, to then get into Austria, to fight our way through the mountains there, then to try to get to Berlin (Churchill's plan).

Sure, Salerno was not exactly well planned but the US Army had to land somewhere and there were few options that were aligned with the desires of the overall theater commander of the Italian Campaign (a British officer, Alexander, who was taking direct orders from Churchill, who was micromanaging as he was want to do). The biggest problem was the Germans correctly guessed the invasion beach area beforehand so had ample Panzer forces nearby to counterattack the landing (which nearly worked).

The British and US Army advance toward Rome was botched because of those pesky mountains, besides being split in two by the Apennine Mountain range. Monte Cassino was just one of many, many such obstacles that dotted Italy and had to be forced or flanked, that were a defender's paradise. Anzio, designed to flank the forces at Monte Cassino, was Churchill's bright idea, he pressed it, Alexander pushed it, Clark had to do it even though he didn't have the forces or the support necessary, it was essentially doomed before it kicked off.

Italy was an expensive side show that tied down far too many Allied forces. The ONLY positive was it tied down numerous German top tier divisions, including many very good panzer divisions, and in the end a slightly higher number of Germans died compared to British and Americans.

The Brits were holding their own in 41.  Not exactly winning, but not losing either.  In the long run just surviving equaled winning though.  Lend Lease equipment bought them time. Oddly enough the first half of 42 was a disaster for the allies.  Until Midway in June almost nothing went right.  It was arguably November before we started to get out act together.

Actually, before.  That's why they got attacked.

Germany was never, ever, anywhere close to building a nuke, nor did it have a delivery system.  Only one economy on the planet could biuld a nuke and TWO complete separate delivery systems for it.

They were pushing back successfully in North Africa, but neither Germany nor the UK had a realistic ability to invade one another.

But yes, the UK technically "won" in June 1941. Its just that mainland Europe would be speaking Russian now

Assuming no other variable changes besides our entering the war, and presumably continuing to equip the allies

Not JUST logistics.  We also gave them intelligence product.  More than made up for their generally incompetent generals - they had killed too many senior officers in the purges.

Lucas fucked Anzio, not Clark. Nine days to start an offensive after landing essentially unopposed...

Exactly. If winning means pushing the Germans back to inside their borders, then no. If it means being safe from German invasion and control of England, then yes. I suppose winning/losing depends on if you consider the continent in the equation.

Could the US have made a difference in Europe if England had been under German control?

Britain would have been burned, rocketed and bombed to the stone age.  They had no offense and little defense.  Germany could have put all their subs around Britain and stopped all shipping.

Douhet's theory of demoralizing the civilian population could not be done with conventional WW II bombs.  Look how touch the Soviets fought in Stalingrad after it was destroyed by the Luftwaffe.   Luftwaffe never developed a good, long range fighter capable of handling the Spitfire on equal or superior terms either.  Without the fighter, the bombers were vulnerable.

That assertion cannot be supported by the facts.  The German economy was no on a war footing long into the war.  The increases in production came NOT from a lack of damage to the industries, but rather an acceleration of production as Speer actually moved the German economy to a war footing.

More tellingly, what would German production have been had they NOT been bombed, and had they NOT have to relocate whole factories underground?

And Germany still ended up ruling over the UK despite the outcome of those wars.

Somehow, you overlooked these:

HMS Hood

sunk by german gunfire
HMS Glorious

sunk by german gunfire
HMS Royal Oak   sunk by German U-boat, torpedo
HMS Barnham

sunk by German U-boat, torpedo
HMS Repulse

sunk by Japanese air attack
HMS Prince of Wales   sunk by Japanese air attack

It wasn't quite as one-sided as you make it out to be.

I DOUBT IT...
Without U.S. Military involvement and Lend-Lease to both G.B. and Russia, the war would have lasted until Germany A-bombed them until surrender.

Lucas had a single corps, only two assault divisions (one British, one America) at his disposal, which Clark, Lucas, Truscott all agreed was not enough. Their "objective," provided by Churchill, was the Alban Hills 15 miles away. The rest of his force didn't land for quite some time. If two infantry divisions with barely any tanks, and a beachhead that was seemingly in the bottom of a bowl, where all German held high ground around could see individual people walking on the beach from upwards of nearly 20 miles away (and directing artillery on them), if they attempted to drive to the hills when the Germans did arrive they'd have been encircled, their lines to the beach slashed, and then destroyed, and then the Germans would counter attack the beach, which would have no defenders, and overrun that too. Which nearly happened anyway, and that was after not leave the beach.

The Anzio landing should never had happened, it was a very bad plan. The only reason it happened, was because the person who planned it wouldn't take no for an answer. Churchill had it pushed through, despite knowing they couldn't spare more assault divisions, despite knowing they didn't have enough landing craft to support it, despite knowing the objective (Alban hills) were too far away to reach without being easily cut off, encircled and destroyed. And yet still forced it to be conducted. Why? Because it was Churchill, and that is what he did throughout the war, make horrible decisions and then press to make sure they happened.

I had a little bird,
Its name was Enza.
I opened the window,
And in-flu-enza.

Only thing more annoying and wrong headed than a Brit who thinks GB won WW2 is a Brit who thinks that Delta is still little brother to the SAS.

Makes me wonder if we could do it again. We cranked out so much stuff so fast, I just don’t know if we have it in us now.

Actually it was.

The Royal Navy could afford to lose them.

Edit: in response to losing the Hood, the Royal Navy sent 100 ships into the North Atlantic to sink the Bismarck.

The Germans couldn’t afford to lose a single capital ship.

Same story as at Jutland.

The Brits had to import 70% of their food during the War. The entire country of Britain would have starved.

Dude, the British won the war in North Africa basically on their own, the Americans were a day late and buck short on that campaign.  The Germans could never win in North Africa, because they could never get past the Royal Navy in the Med.

An army without logistical support is just a target.

The US doesn't contribute in a meaningful way to a land campaign till the invasion of Italy.

With respect to the German success in North Africa and their intelligence, it wasn't just the compromised US Army officer.  The biggest reason was that the Germans had a signals intelligence section in North Africa who had broken the British codes.

You never hear the British talk about this, but the Germans were able to decode the British signals traffic for the whole North African theatre basically in real time.  Hence why, Rommel always seemed to know where to attack.

Eventually the British found out about this German signals intelligence unit.  They got a midnight "visit" from the SAS.

At around the same time this unit got whacked, the war in North Africa turned against the Afrika Corps.  Makes you wonder how much the information Rommel got from this unit contributed to making the myth of Rommel.

Amateurs talk strategy.  Professionals talk logistics.  You can't win a war without beans and bullets and that aspect, in and of itself, is vital to understanding the how and why of WWII.

This.  You bring up a vital point. Pre-war Stalin decimated his experienced officer corps.  They used our intel to great effect.

Above is a map of the Middle East oil fields and pipelines during WW2.

I agree that initially the goal of sending Rommel to aid the Italians was not to take the oil fields.

However, once the success of Rommel in north Africa had sunk in Berlin, they of course began thinking about the oil fields in Iran and Iraq.  The Saudi Oil, had not been tapped yet, but the British had been getting oil from Iraq and Iran since around the time of WW1.

The German Army in southern Russia was still doing well on the offensive at this time.   Plans change as warfare changes, while things were going well for the Germans in both theatres, it was briefly on the table.

The eventual goal was the link up of the 2 armies in Iran.

With regard to the Italian campaign, I firmly believe Churchill pushed for something he knew wasn't going to work well.  In order have the Red Army continue to pay the majority of the butcher's bill for defeating the Germans.  For that I do admire him.  Another great example of the British being shady fucks.

Pulled from a Mental Floss article, but includes a nice direct quote...
http://mentalfloss.com/article/87054/wwi-centennial-brits-fear-growing-dependence-us

The US's big contribution in WWI was during it's "neutrality," as financier and supplier of materiel, allowing the war efforts in Britain and France to continue.  As history played out, this support was a mistake.

Russia would have never gotten to Berlin without a western front.

The British “code” in North Africa was just verbal nuance saying stupid shit like “my horse threw a shoe” meaning your tank lost a track and they used open broadcast frequencies. The Germans didn’t have to work too hard to break that “code”. Also the 88’s fucked up alot of armor in just minutes.

The Tizzard Mission is proof that the Brits needed the US.

thank you sir... well done.

Kesselring got the absolute most out of what he had to work with.. I also think this strategy, although absurd in an operational sense, was Churchill's strategic idea to insert himself in/near central Europe to get leverage on the Soviets.. an notion he was obviously constantly scheming on..

Both UK and USSR would have lost hard without US supplies.

yes..  

It wasn't so much the oil fields, as it was the Suez canal.  Without Suez, England is effectively cut off from her colonies.  Despite Churchill's powerful words, the likely result would have been British capitulation since Hitler was amenable to a peace treaty that allowed England to keep her Empire.

This, funky's full of shit.

Without American guns, ammo, food, fuel, tanks, trucks, aircraft, ships, and other machines, Germany would have steamrolled over Russia, redirected their forces away from the Eastern front, and conquered more than half of europe.

War is about LOGISTICS, not just fighting capability.

Some of you give Russia more credit than it deserves...

Russia was aided in doing a lot of damage to Germany via the Eastern front due to the US bombing the shit out of every German factory, oil refineries, railroad yards, etc slowing to a crawl German tank, aircraft production, ammo production and more. The US gave Russia thousands of planes, tanks, blankets and food. Russia moved 90% of its troops in US made Studebaker, Ford GMC and Dodge trucks. They had very few trucks of their own during the war.

Even the battle of Kursk (the turning point on the Eastern front) though technically a stalemate was the result of the allies giving the Russians all of the German plans for the battle. This is because the Brits broke the German enigma machine code. They knew every message transmitted to the Eastern front by the Germans and passed that on to the Russians. So if Kursk was a stalemate for the Russians knowing all the German moves strengths supplies and where to dig in, what roads they were coming down...what would it have been without any of that info?

Russia had unlimited conscript man power I'll give them that, but then again so did China and that didn't stop the Japs from walking over them. Many other factors come into play.

like the Americans @ Midway..

yes... we gave them something like 1,500 locomotives and 10,000 + cars, along with a shit ton of rail... 10 million pairs of boots... half a million trucks and jeeps..

I've read it explained that we provided all the support ingredients so the Soviets could concentrate on manufacture of tanks, guns and ground attack aircraft and that's a reason their production #'s in those categories are so fantastic.. they could focus on combat equipment..

Logistics is the entire reason we had a war in the Pacific. It can't be discounted.

Just asked Churchill. He said something to the effect that when the US entered the war he slept good that night knowing England was saved

WWI their resources, supply lines, and manpower was almost gone.

WWII isolation. Their troops were scattered and being pushed back all over Northern Africa and small parts of Europe. Had the states never entered the war, it’s doubtful that the Russian push would have kept on going and it’s doubtful Germany would have taken resources away from the Uboat blockade. They would have had no need. They were pumping vehicles and weapons out of their factories fast as well.