Talk:Operation Sledgehammer

This doesn't sound right
"with increased pressure on the British"

And the british (led by churchill) pressed as well for an italian invasion first and got that. That comment makes it sound that they were forced into what roosevelt had asked for. He didn't get it until after what churchill wanted. And Im American. Just being honest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.58.255 (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the impression given is that the US and USSR view prevailed.


 * Not so. The US and USSR completely failed to grasp the magnitude of the task of carrying out a successful invasion of Western Europe. The British didn't. The British also knew that if an invasion was attempted and failed, the Germans would not give them another chance. They were not going to be 'pressured' into another Gallipoli. And there only needed bad weather during the attempt to destroy any chance of success. The weather in the Mediterranean OTOH was much more predictable, and an invasion of Sicily and Italy would at least draw German divisions away from both the Russian Front and the West. Britain, although sympathetic to the plight of the Soviets, was also well aware that until the Soviet Union had been invaded in 1941, that country had been supporting Nazi Germany as a de-facto ally at a time when Britain and France had been at war with Germany, followed subsequently by Britain fighting on alone. So Stalin's pleas didn't cut much ice with either Churchill, or the British Chiefs of Staff. As the (German) saying goes "If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas".


 * The main purpose of the 1942 Dieppe Raid was to show the US leaders that any invasion of Western Europe was not going to be the walkover that some of them appeared to think it would be. For any invasion the US wasn't going to be supplying the shipping needed, Britain was, in addition, the US forces in Britain were only there with the consent of the British government.


 * Any invasion of Europe from the West was therefore completely dependant on Britain. US applied so-called 'pressure' on the UK could have resulted in the US being told to get out. The US was at war with Germany whether it liked it or not, and if it wanted to fight Germany it needed Britain. OTOH, if this had happened, the British would have carried on bombing Germany as it had been doing before the US entered the war, with the resources saved used to build up the really big bomber force - 5,000 aircraft - that Arthur Harris wanted, but never got.


 * The magnitude of the invasion task can be gauged by the subsequent successful Operation Overlord D-day operation in June 1944. Even then, certain of the commanders wanted to go with landing only four divisions. Montgomery's view prevailed, and they went with five. Overlord required a total of around 4,000 ships, of which around 100 were from the US - the rest - 3,900 were British-supplied. That's how dependant on the British the US was for an invasion.


 * The successful invasion of Western Europe in June 1944 was a result of, for the most part, excellent co-operation between Britain and the US. Without Britain, Montgomery, and Eisenhower, it would never have happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.216 (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikpedia is not a forum. having said that, your views are at odds with many facts. The wartime debate between the US chiefs and the British chiefs is rather well documented. Do not forget that although the USSR was cooperating with the Germans from Aug 1939 to June 1941, the shoe was on the other foot earlier - in 1938 the UK and france were cooperating with the Germans and the argument can be credibly made (and this was certainly Stalin's view) that the western powers were perfectly happy to see the Germans and Soviets fight each other. Truman later said so, quite bluntly. I see no moral difference between Britain and France giving the Germans Czechoslovakia and Stalin giving the Germans a free hand in Poland. No one's hands were entirely clean.

In terms of who depended upon whom, all the allies depended on each other. There is however little question that the materiel strength of the USA was essential to Britain, and only rarely was the dependence in the other direction. Yes, Britain supplied much of the shipping for Normandy. Loaded on those ships were, e.g., British tank regiments equipped with US tanks, burning US fuel....etc.

DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * So how was the US going to fight Germany if in 1943-44 Churchill had given Roosevelt three months to get his (Roosevelt's) forces out of Britain.


 * " ... and only rarely was the dependence in the other direction" - you have been misinformed - The British supplied almost all the naval forces and transport shipping for the entire European and North African campaigns. The British supplied several thousand ships for D-Day while the US supplied around one hundred. Britain also supplied the vast majority of the ships for the Sicilian and Italian invasions. These two occasions may have been 'rare' but they were rather important. Then what about Ultra.


 * People who think Britain was in any way dependant on other countries presume too much and take too much for granted. Britain always had the option of doing things differently than the way they were subsequently actually done. Where possible the British tried to accommodate the wishes and views of their allies, but they had tried being led by others before in 1939-40, with disappointing results. The BEF had been under the command of an ally (France) right up to Dunkirk. If you really think Churchill was going to allow people on the other side of an ocean or in a country that had carelessly already allowed itself to be invaded dictate how the war would be fought then you are very much mistaken.


 * You see, people often make the mistake of thinking that you absolutely need to win a war. Not so, you only needs to survive. The only times Germany came close to beating the British Empire was during the Battle of Britain in 1940 and the Battle of the Atlantic in 1941-42. The Germans lost both battles, and it wasn't the US or USSR that beat them. You see, Britain only needed US help if they wanted to liberate Western Europe. But why should they, it wasn't British territory that had been taken - if you exclude the Channel Islands. Britain had after 1940 and The Blitz made plans for fighting the war before either the USSR or US (or Japan) entered into that conflict, and this meant bombing Germany to bits - as the RAF subsequently did. Britain had depended on 'allies' before in 1940 and then seen the same allies "packing up and going home, taking their ball with them" as it where, so bombing Germany was not reliant on "here today, gone tomorrow" allies. You see, neither Churchill nor the CIGS were stupid enough to rely entirely in their allies for fighting the war.


 * The US was entirely dependant on Britain if the US wanted to fight Germany in Western Europe. Without Britain every tank and vehicle produced by the USA would have been useless unless supplied to the Russians or used against the Japanese and so would have been every aircraft with the exception of the B-36. See what I mean by taking too much for granted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)