Come up a lot on this forum so I thought I would throw it up for debate.
For me the battle of Britain was fought before land-lease came into effect and we stood alone against the axis, held our ground long enough for operation Sea Lion to be sidelined due part to our own bravery and Germanys stupidity of launching Operation Barbarossa.
Well you would be wrong in my opinion. Lend-lease was not the crucial part, it was the fact that the UK was getting supplies from the US at all. Had the pro-Nazi congress people gotten their way, then the UK would have been cut off from these supplies and that would effectively have starved the UK long before lend-lease came along and helped defend the convoys. Yes the UK was loosing shipping left and right in the North Atlantic before lend-lease and the convoy system got into action, but food and fuel did reach the UK and lend-lease would not have mattered if the UK and Soviets had not received supplies in the early months and years from the US despite the massive losses in ships and men.. much to the frustration of the pro-Nazi isolationistic politicians.
By the time America joined the war the tide had turned after victories over the skies of England, El Alamein and the Russian defensive lines.
I agree fully.. especially Hitlers defeat at Stalingrad was the turning point since it put him on the defensive on the Eastern front and he lost a lot of his best troops. And it most importantly managed to delay Hitlers advance long enough so fresh troops and material could be put in place for the crushing blow.
The Battle of Britain, while important for the UK survival and British moral, it only really cost the Germans resources, where as the British almost lost everything.. remember the Germans were arguably days away from winning the battle of Britain according to historical documents.
El Alamein was important too in stopping the German advance in the rich oil areas of the middle east, but it was far more important for British moral as it was the first major battle of WW2 that they basically won.. but in truth it was a hollow victory since they had far larger forces and firepower and the Germans had over extended their supply lines (which is why their advance slowed down). Even the Americans could have been Rommel at this point! Yes that is a bit sarcastic!
The war could not have been won in the west without the aid of the USA but threat of total invasion had passed.
The US involvement on the "building stuff" was critical, especially from 39 to 42-3, where their industry kept the allies in the game. But the reality in the European theatre is that the US military forces never really had the impact that American's believe they had (the we came and saved your asses crowd) and certainly not as big an impact as they had in the Asian theatre of war.
For example the break-out from Normandy. The common view based on history lessons, that this was the brave American forces that forced their way out... not exactly. The Americans met very little resistance once of the beaches (lots on it though), and that was mostly because Hitler poured most of his troops into the Battle of Caen against the British and Canadians. The "spectacular" breakout was more like a "oh, we can move now since there is no one stopping us" moment.
We have for many years been spoonfed the US version of WW2, the bold and brave Americans coming to save us all, when the reality was much different.
For one, most people dont even realize how close to disaster D-Day came because of American incompetence and arrogance and that many of the American's who died on D-Day died because of this. For example, on the American beaches, the moronic American commanders choose to send in their floating tanks in rough waters, but also far to far out.. against the specific recommendations of the British makers, and that meant that many American tank crews drowned and that meant the landing troops did not have heavy armour to break out of the beaches.. which btw, were the wrong beaches in some areas because someone could not read a map.
Or the fact that the American Mulbery harbour, a critical element in the plan.. an element that the US commanders never believed in (or any of the other gadgets that the British made for the landings... which is ironic since the US military uses them today), sank because the boneheaded American commander of the harbour did not read the freaking manual on how to assemble the harbour and hence did not secure the elements correctly. Thankfully the British did follow the instructions and that harbour survived (still parts of it at the same spot today) and managed to supply ALL the landing forces.
