"British/American Alliance in WW2" Topic

Whenever I've got down to studying WW2 history it's always been at the tactical level, very rarely anything at the strategic/theatre level.
So this year my reading list was filled with books that broadened my WW2 horizons.

One of the things I find so surprising is just how comparatively harmonious the British-American alliance was. Sure there were fractious moments, commanders who didn't get along (although that was just as true within national armies), and even blatant opportunism to outdo the other ally.
But, given the stresses involved the fact that the alliance remained solid is not unremarkable, what is very remarkable are the instances of trust, support and sacrifice given by one nation to another (I'm throwing Canada in here too). And some of the remarkable friendships that held the alliance together despite everything (not least Churchill and Roosevelt).

Maybe I'm being over sentimental.

There is a habit of concentrating on the huge egos. Without the close co-operation present at all levels nothing would have been achieved.

Churchill and Roosevelt, despite the recent attempts I've seen to muddy things, truly liked and respected each other. Dwight Eisenhower also gets a good bit of credit, if Monty or Patton or even Marshall had been in charge of SHAEF it might have been a different story.

Generals Dill (UK) and Marshall (US), seemed to have an excellent working relationship, nipping in the bud many a potential crisis.
Roosevelt said of Dill, "the most important figure in the remarkable accord which has been developed in the combined operations of our two countries"

Read up on the Schweinfurt raid and the history behind it to see how hard the British worked to derail US day-time bombing. You'll see some great friendships but less than harmonious allies there.

OK, Wikipaedia, but – that was one raid and:

'Of the 291 B-17 Flying Fortresses sent on the mission, 60 were lost outright, another 17 damaged so heavily that they had to be scrapped, and another 121 had varying degrees of battle damage. Outright losses represented over 26% of the attacking force. Losses in aircrew were equally heavy, with 650 men lost of 2,900, 22% of the bomber crews. The American Official History of the Army Air Forces in the Second World War acknowledged losses had been so heavy that the USAAF would not return to the target for four months; "The fact was that the Eighth Air Force had for the time being lost air superiority over Germany".[3]'

So the raid was very expensive.

Also:

' Arthur Harris, Air Officer Commanding RAF Bomber Command questioned the intelligence that claimed ball bearings to be the critical node in the German war economy. Harris refused to cooperate with the Americans, believing ball bearing targets to be a false "panacea".[8] Post-war analysis has shown Harris' objections to be correct.[9] The Germans had built up enormous reserves of ball bearings and were receiving supplies from all over Europe, particularly Italy, Sweden and Switzerland. The operation against these industries would, even if successful, have achieved little.['

and

'The operation was a failure at all levels. The tactical-technological failure to produce a long-range escort exposed the bombers to unrelenting attacks by German fighters and the improper preparations for the creation of reserves in the summer, 1943, meant that current logistics could not sustain such costly operations.'

So the British were actually right. It was an expensive failure – perhaps 'see how hard the British worked to derail US day-time bombing.' should have read 'But sometimes the US was not prepared to listen to good advice!'

Camel smokes and silk stockings? :)
Good kit and chow always made pals, pity the Yanks disliked tea so much, it would have been perfect ;)
Cheers

Speaking almost the same language helped. Shared experience of WWI did too. But the friendly relationship of Churchill and Roosevelt was probably the key. And we fit well. The British had the experience and the forward base, the US had the materiel and manpower. Both had good air forces and excellent navies.

It's a very good thing that the British dragged their heels so long in invading France.
Can you imagine Omaha Beach before the Yanks found out how much they did not know?
Fredenhall commanding?

"One of the things I find so surprising is just how comparatively harmonious the British-American alliance was"

And people claim Eisenhower wasn't a brilliant commander. He played the primary and key role in keeping the alliance running, despite twits like Montgomery (ok, Monty was a brilliant general, but he would have alienated and offended the U.S. Army to the limits of consternation, had he been in charge).

Yes, despite our previous wars, we all speak the same language, and come from the same mother country, so have very similar values, really.

That's why the US, Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand generally get along so well, and are frequently allies fighting alongside one another.

Read up on the Schweinfurt raid

link Bomber Harris was convinced of his brilliance but he was never going to win this argument. It does put the USAF bomber raids in a slightly different prospective. I always said that was the effect i.e. forcing the Luftwaffe to fight, I didn't realize that was the intent.

Maybe those guys were smarter than I thought?

It's all about the Anglosphere, isn't it!

link

I don't deny that Ike played an important roll in NWE, but we also managed to get along in the other theaters as well.

Roosevelt looked into the palantir and saw that if Britain lost the war, the US would never get rid of Madonna.

The steadfast Anglo-American alliance is all the more remarkable when you consider that up until the United States declared war on Germany in April of 1917, relations between the US and England had been downright chilly for a long, long time. There was that whole War of 1812 thing and then the Americans (in the North anyway) were seriously annoyed at even the lukewarm English support for the South during the Civil War (and, of course, the British were equally annoyed by the Trent Incident). And in the early stages of World War I the Americans were just as angry about the British blockade of Germany as they were about U-Boats sinking unarmed merchant ships. The Naval Act of 1916, which committed the US to building a navy "Second to none", was aimed at the British much more than the Germans. So to a certain extent, the German admirals, by resuming unrestricted submarine warfare, didn't just lose World War I, they lost World War II as well.

Very true.

One of my friends once summed up the US/UK relationship thus:

Brit: "Hey Yank, check out this new radar set we've come up with! Pain in the butt to make, but it sure gets results!"

American: "That's really cool! Can I borrow this and show my friends?"

Brit: "Sure thing!"

2 months later…

American: "Hey Brit, you remember that nifty radar set you lent me?"

Brit: "In fact I do. I've been waiting for it back for two months!"

American: "Well, here's 10,000 of them. They were surplus to our needs!"

"We'll call it, I don't know… United Auscanzealia or something."

Oceania?

Having a (relatively) common language and cultural heritage helps a lot.

"We'll call it, I don't know… United Auscanzealia or something."

Oceania?"

Been done. An English fellow, George…..something.

Ameribritcanauszelia? or United Democratic Nations (UDN)?

No, the Americans opted out of the club. Commonwealth has one head of state – 'nuff said.