hidden agenda of british in ww2 - Page 3 - Historum

**galteeman** · June 27th, 2008, 04:07 AM

yes sledgehammer was an plan to be used in late 1942 in the event of a disaster such as an imminent soviet collapse. it would have been undertaken in order to give immediate emergency relief to the soviets in such a scenario.

Baldtastic · August 6th, 2009, 06:18 AM

First of all very interesting thread......secondly sorry if what im saying has been said already i dont have time to read all the posts and i know my boss is looking my way and wondering what im doing?!

I have always thought that in some way the US actually wanted the British and the Commonwealth counties to win the war...but only, ONLY just. This would allow them to cement their place as the superpower, and lay the foundations for their dominance both military and economically, and possibly socially.
I think the British we in effect trying to limit the damage (certainly towards the end of the war) on their Empire, infrastructure and military where as the US wanted the exact opposite effect the the brits. I realise that Pearl Harbor was the defining moment in the US joining the Allies but they had good enough reason to join before this event (U-boat attacking shipping, aggressive moves by the germans and japanese in terms of the placing of armies/fleets), it wouldn’t have taken alot to convince the population that war was necessary before that infamous day.
So essentially i think there was no consopiracy by the brits, dont forget that they had suffered many MANY more deaths (both military AND civilians) and so were, understandably, weary of a full blown invasion without already having other landings in different Axis countries, and a safeguarded flanks (Afirca, italy, greece/balkans, and especially eastern front)
So if there was any conspiracies i think it was on the other side of the atlantic!

**avon** · August 6th, 2009, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baldtastic

I have always thought that in some way the US actually wanted the British and the Commonwealth counties to win the war...but only, ONLY just. This would allow them to cement their place as the superpower, and lay the foundations for their dominance both military and economically, and possibly socially.

Maybe yes AND no. Whilst some in Washington undoubtedly saw a chance to dominate Britain and probably more were keen to see the end of the BRitish Empire, I think that, on balance, primary concern was winning the war. I also think that it's important to remember Rossevelt's own, perhaps overly idealist, plans for after the war: the 'Four Policemen' idea required a strong Britain AND a strong USSR (and later, hopefully, China). If the US were happy to see the end of anyone (other than Germany) it was France, a nation for whom, even then, the US had little love for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baldtastic

So if there was any conspiracies i think it was on the other side of the atlantic!

Maybe those 'conspiracies' are merely international relations ... strategic diplomacy perhaps.

Welcome to the forum, Baldtastic!

Ivor Badger · August 6th, 2009, 07:50 AM

The US army got pushed off the beach by the French during Torch. It then came within a heartbeat of getting kicked off the beach at Salerno some 9 months later. trapped on the beach some 4 months later at Anzio. So any attempt by the US to invade Northern Europe in mid 42 would have resulted in a bigger disaster than Dieppe.

sabio · August 6th, 2009, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galteeman

why did it take the western allies so long to mount the d-day operation and end the war?
the americans were proposing d-day in 1942 and 1943 but the british came up with varying bogus excuses to stop it going ahead. instead pushing for operations in north africa which couldn't possibly win the war.
the real british agenda was to protect and even expand their empire by fighting in africa and also to slyly let the germans and russians slaughter each other.
this flies in the face of the popular notion of the british saving the world. if the americans had got their way the war would have been over much sooner and eastern europe would have been saved from stalin. churchills imperialism caused the deaths of millions more people and the spread of the iron curtain over the east.
any thoughts?

Hitler predicted that the British would lose their empire, if they went to war, so maybe they feared the same

**Chookie** · August 6th, 2009, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivor Badger

The US army got pushed off the beach by the French during Torch....

True, but that is only to be expected - after all the French were defending their homeland (yes they were. French Morocco was a department of France). What is more to the point is that the action in the Kassereine Pass gave the US forces a serious heads-up in that it showed them that experience beats enthusiasm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivor Badger

So any attempt by the US to invade Northern Europe in mid 42 would have resulted in a bigger disaster than Dieppe.

Couldn't be done. The Americans wanted to seize a port, but even weeks after the success of Operation Overlord, the Allies didn't actually hold a port. Besides the resources didn't exist. There were no serious numbers landing craft of any sort, there was little or no support element, in short, the Allies didn't have the ability to launch a sea-borne invasion. Nor did they have the will. The much vaunted American wish to invade in 1942 was, in my estimation a publicity campaign for the "folks back home" to show that Americans did it better.

**Chookie** · August 6th, 2009, 02:41 PM

Double post.

NullZone · August 6th, 2009, 11:13 PM

Given the state of the USAF during 1942-43, the small number of planes they had, the in-experiance of their crew and the learning curve the staff officers were goinng through then any invasion would have been against very stiff resistant. Both from the Luftwaffe with their experiance of ground support and a French rail network/road network still intact and able to move troops around rapidly.