Without America Would the Allies have lost WWII?

[The South Islands]

... that was what Lend-Lease was.

Lend-Lease certainly wasn't OMG FREE STUFFZ, but it was better then the Cash and Carry that was enforced by the Neutrality Acts during WWI.

[Exilia and Colonies]

Wut? We paid for the war the whole way through.

Without Lend-Lease we would have had to pay for all that stuff we imported from America

... that was what Lend-Lease was.

No it wasn't. That was Cash and Carry.

Lend Lease gave us free stuff (In the sense that we gave them no money. We gave up a few bases and such)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend_lease. Look in the second paragraph. "Apart from that, there were no payments for supplies that arrived before the termination date, the terms of the agreement providing for their return or destruction."

[Sdaeriji]

Someone read the lend lease wikipedia article.

Anyway, the reason they took American aid was simple economics. They were getting free* shit from America. Why bother retooling factories and retraining the work force to produce goods that were only supporting the war effort (ie, no glory) when it was much simpler to continue using developed heavy industry to produce military material?

The production figures show that the Soviet Union vastly outproduced the UK and US in tanks, small arms, artillery, and other direct war material (absolute contraband, in the words of the 1909 London Declaration). They, in their communist wisdom, simply considered that continuing to produce war material would be a better use of resources then rejecting American aid and retooling factories to produce trucks, locomotives, and other vital (yet supporting) goods.

Essentially, they let the Americans do the dirty work.

Let me see if I can explain this:

If the goods provided by the US were "insignificant" and Soviet industry could have retooled to produce the goods the Americans provided, that implies that Soviet industry was overproducing these other war materials, such that such a retooling would not have resulted in a deficiency in those goods previously produced.

I strongly reject the notion that the USSR had industry to spare, and still could have defeated Germany "on about the same timetable" without American contributions. Without Lend-Lease, all the goods provided by the Americans would have had to been manufactured by Soviet industry that was 100% occupied in producing enough war materials to defeat the German invasion. Without American goods, Soviet industry would have had to reduce the number of tanks, guns, equipment, etc. they produced in order to produce the trains, trucks, fighters, bombers, and other equipment that they needed. Given that, even with American goods, it took three years to push the Germans out of Russia, I have significant difficulty believing that these goods were "insignificant" or that Soviet industry could have made up these deficiencies on their own without creating shortfalls elsewhere. I'm sorry, but it's an argument devoid of logic, unless we believe that Soviet industry was not 100% committed to the war effort.

[Robustian]

If America was not involved in Europe or the Pacific, would Britain and France be speaking German, or a Communist Europe arise.

In my opinion, the war would have been extended probably until 1946 which by that point the British would have been out and the Soviets pushed into Berlin and into France.

Of course, there's no definitive unarguable answer to that, but the evidence suggests the Allies would have lost. Militarily, the US was the powerhouse of industrial production, technology, and manpower. However, there's so many "what if" scenarios, that speculation simply cannot predict what the outcome would have been absent the involvement of the US.

What role did the US involvement play, in regards to the decisions by the Russians? That's hard to say. Lots has been written on the matter, but in terms of being purely objective, the truth is it's hard to say.

After the blood-letting at Dunkirk, how would Britain have rebuilt their military, the kind necessary to take and hold land? After Dunkirk, there was only "resistance" and the UK left. Had the Axis been given time, it would have increased its military machine. But that time would have also given the Germans the opportunity to continue to bomb the UK, slowing production. Also, I have to note the involvement of the Japanese would have become a very significant role in even Europe, had the Japanese not been fighting the US in the Pacific.

On the other hand, the political Axis never really trusted each other-for obvious reasons. The shifting alliances before the full on war led to quite the distrustful situation among the Axis. This is true even of some of the Allies. For insterest's sake, note the repeated shifts in alliances by the Finnish, caught between the Russians and Germans, and walking back and forth between them.

Another aspect of this is: What if the Russians became the dominant victor after WWII... What would Europe and much of the rest of the free world look like? Eastern Europe has a very ominous ring in that scenario. I fault Truman, among others, for the disaster of Eastern Europe, and it's generations of oppressed and repressed. There's no really valid reason in my mind for there to have ever been an East Germany, or for the disasters of Yugoslavia, Romania, Poland, and of course, the now "Balkanized" Balkan states, just to name a few issues. But had there been no US at the table at all, how would Europe have turned out, had most of it ended up as client states of the USSR? That's a thought so horrible one does not wish to contemplate it.

[The South Islands]

Let me see if I can explain this:

If the goods provided by the US were "insignificant" and Soviet industry could have retooled to produce the goods the Americans provided, that implies that Soviet industry was overproducing these other war materials, such that such a retooling would not have resulted in a deficiency in those goods previously produced.

I strongly reject the notion that the USSR had industry to spare, and still could have defeated Germany "on about the same timetable" without American contributions. Without Lend-Lease, all the goods provided by the Americans would have had to been manufactured by Soviet industry that was 100% occupied in producing enough war materials to defeat the German invasion. Without American goods, Soviet industry would have had to reduce the number of tanks, guns, equipment, etc. they produced in order to produce the trains, trucks, fighters, bombers, and other equipment that they needed. Given that, even with American goods, it took three years to push the Germans out of Russia, I have significant difficulty believing that these goods were "insignificant" or that Soviet industry could have made up these deficiencies on their own without creating shortfalls elsewhere. I'm sorry, but it's an argument devoid of logic, unless we believe that Soviet industry was not 100% committed to the war effort.

The Soviet Union vastly outnumbered the German Army in terms of (domestically produced) aircraft, tanks, artillery, and infantry (equipped with soviet manufactured small arms). I contend that this vast overproduction in relation to Germany was not necessary to produce the same result in the war. I see it as a case of diminishing returns as it pertains to this equipment. I'm convinced that all the equipment produced by the Soviet Union during the war was not necessary to defeat Nazi Germany. Similar to naval production in the United States. Were 20 fleet carriers necessary to defeat Japan? I'd guess not.

[Andorias]

I don't understand your answers: did Japan count shit?
How many soviet armies were supposed to contain a japanese attack in Siberia?
Did the eventual loss of India, Australia and the Middle East to the japanese mean anything at all?

[Ralkovia]

It was the fact that the Germans could have easily halted the Russian advance against them. The Germans had aerial superiority over Russia it was the fact that the Americans and British destroyed German air support and removed German war production that the Russians won. The fact of the matter was the Germans didn't have enough bullets to kill all the Russians because their war factories were being removed by American and British air planes. The Germans would have no doubt been able to repulse any D-day without American support.

You guys assume that without the Americans the war would have only dragged on longer. The US brought invaluable support in weapons. Britain of course would have easily repulsed any invasion but they were at a distinct disadvantage should any counterattack have been made.

Even if you guys were right and America only sped up Germany's so called inevitable defeat the German's only needed more time. Many of their weapons, the so called Wunderwaffe, only needed time to be put into production. Permitting that the invasion, D-day, sped up production of some of the larger fail weapon, you've got to assume that the German's would have put into full scale production the STG-44 and some of the more deadlier weapons. An Advanced V-2 would have been able to hit Russia, and assuming more advances in that kind of technology, been used to destroy parts of Moscow as well as hit production factories. Lack of time was what spelled German Defeat. Do you really think a bombed England would have been able to mount a D-day or even handle the sheer amount of bombing needed to destroy German War Production? The German's with the introduction of more fighter jets and long range jet bombers could have broken down any remaining resistance. This is all assumption that Hitler being the military 'genius' that he was didn't invest in the Ratte or Maus or one of the many other 'Bigger is better' compensation weapons. You've got to assume about a lot of things, what if the German's could have brought in extra reinforcements to Stalingrad that were reserved for the Atlantic wall. If Germany transition most of its fighters from protecting factories over to the Russian front you would see cataclysmic losses in Russia.

It is undisputed that the opening of a second front was an absolute disaster for Germany but it didn't settle anything. At any point Germany had devoted a portion or even a majority of its forces on the western wall over to the Russian front anything could have happened. I am definitely glad the war played out how it did or I surely wouldn't be alive. I thank the Russians for their overwhelming numbers that allowed them to stop the German's and liberate the extermination camps.

[Taeshan]

They would hav ebeen screwed, they didnt really have a chance. europe would all be german.

[Sdaeriji]

Let me see if I can explain this:

If the goods provided by the US were "insignificant" and Soviet industry could have retooled to produce the goods the Americans provided, that implies that Soviet industry was overproducing these other war materials, such that such a retooling would not have resulted in a deficiency in those goods previously produced.

I strongly reject the notion that the USSR had industry to spare, and still could have defeated Germany "on about the same timetable" without American contributions. Without Lend-Lease, all the goods provided by the Americans would have had to been manufactured by Soviet industry that was 100% occupied in producing enough war materials to defeat the German invasion. Without American goods, Soviet industry would have had to reduce the number of tanks, guns, equipment, etc. they produced in order to produce the trains, trucks, fighters, bombers, and other equipment that they needed. Given that, even with American goods, it took three years to push the Germans out of Russia, I have significant difficulty believing that these goods were "insignificant" or that Soviet industry could have made up these deficiencies on their own without creating shortfalls elsewhere. I'm sorry, but it's an argument devoid of logic, unless we believe that Soviet industry was not 100% committed to the war effort.

The Soviet Union vastly outnumbered the German Army in terms of (domestically produced) aircraft, tanks, artillery, and infantry (equipped with soviet manufactured small arms). I contend that this vast overproduction in relation to Germany was not necessary to produce the same result in the war. I see it as a case of diminishing returns as it pertains to this equipment. I'm convinced that all the equipment produced by the Soviet Union during the war was not necessary to defeat Nazi Germany. Similar to naval production in the United States. Were 20 fleet carriers necessary to defeat Japan? I'd guess not.

In that case, what percentage would you apply to the situation to describe how much of the Soviet war effort was overproduction? 10%? 25%? 50%?

I completely reject this belief. Were 20 fleet carriers necessary to defeat Japan? No. We probably could have done it with fewer if we wished to win the war in 1952 or 1966. However, particularly in the case of the Soviet Union where there was an invading force occupying almost 25% of your nation, the objective is not to eventually win by producing just enough war materials to have the edge. The objective is to win as quickly as you are able. There may be diminishing returns in producing 5,000 tanks instead of 500, but unless your contention is that the return is 0% over the imaginary cutoff, you cannot convince me that the extra production did not accelerate the victory. The same applies to all the goods provided by the United States.

[Psychotic Mongooses]

I don't understand your answers: did Japan count shit?

Simply put, yes.

How many soviet armies were supposed to contain a japanese attack in Siberia?

Japanese didn't care to venture back into the Soviet Union after Zhukov knocked lumps out of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-Jap ... order_Wars

[United human countries]

I love how the Brits here are turning their noses up at the idea that they could've won without the Lend-Lease act. Makes for good popcorn munching material.

[Imperialist Reich]

Maybe the allies would still have won.....
But would Japan get involved with the European War?

[Andorias]

I don't understand your answers: did Japan count shit?

Simply put, yes.

How many soviet armies were supposed to contain a japanese attack in Siberia?

Japanese didn't care to venture back into the Soviet Union after Zhukov knocked lumps out of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-Jap ... order_Wars

Yes, but they didn't have to engage US this time so the scenario changes. Besides what's going to happen if the Royal Navy is going to face the Japanese fleet alone?

[Rolling squid]

Maybe the allies would still have won.....
But would Japan get involved with the European War?

Assuming that America didn't enter the war, the Japanese would have had to attack Russia, assuming we aren't just writing them out of the way entirely. Had the Japanese attacked Russia in 1941 or 1942, then the axis would have won. If we take the route that America fought Japan and not Germany, then the Russians probably would have eventually beaten the Germans, and rolled all of Germany and France into the Warsaw pact. This is assuming that the war ends before either side would have gotten their hands on nuclear weapons in the 1950's.

[South Lorenya]

I feel that it would have been a split decision.

Yes, Germany was hosed form the moment they attacked Russia. It likely would have taken longer with the US not there, but it would fall eventually.

Japan's main opponent, however, was the US. If they didn't attack pearl harbor, then their anti-US forces could join the asian attack instead. I don't know if they'd be able to take all of china; it would, however have been fairly easy for them to leave the war with a peace treaty that gives them more land than what they started with.

[Rolling squid]

Yes, Germany was hosed form the moment they attacked Russia. It likely would have taken longer with the US not there, but it would fall eventually.

They really weren't. Germany hit Russia at almost the perfect time, just after the Russian army had had its officer corps purged, suffered a defeat at the lost of Finland, and were not expecting a war until 1942. Had Army group center been better supplied, had the Japanese won the battle of Khalkhin Gol, or had the invading forces treated Ukrainian citizens better, the outcome of the war would have been a German victory.

[JonDeJolly]

If the US left Europe alone then the Germans would have won the war. I would like to point out to everyone who keeps talking about the USSR, If the Russians did not have the tanks, ammo, oil, guns, and so on that we sent over there they would not have had anything to fight the Nazi with. For that matter the Brits would have been pretty SOL as well without the food, ammo, planes, pilots, AA guns.... ect. that we provided them with as well.

[Psychotic Mongooses]

Yes, but they didn't have to engage US this time so the scenario changes.

Considering the border war happened years before any American action, and the Japanese still lost, the scenario hasn't changed. The Japanese didn't want tangle with the Soviets because of prior experience.

Besides what's going to happen if the Royal Navy is going to face the Japanese fleet alone?

.... what? Are the Japanese Navy suddenly going to make an appearance in the Channel or something?

[Andorias]

Yes, but they didn't have to engage US this time so the scenario changes.

Considering the border war happened years before any American action, and the Japanese still lost, the scenario hasn't changed. The Japanese didn't want tangle with the Soviets because of prior experience.

Without US to mess with they could had changed their strategy and attack the Soviets in 1941 or maybe later

Besides what's going to happen if the Royal Navy is going to face the Japanese fleet alone?

.... what? Are the Japanese Navy suddenly going to make an appearance in the Channel or something?

Oh come on... Were the British going to let Japan conquer all their colonies/dominions facing the Indian Ocean taking no action whatsoever?

[Amagina]

The American contribution to the victory over Germany was close to zero.
It was the USSR that defeated Germany. It was in Russia where most of the fighting took place. Germany had 75% of their armed forces at the Eastern Front. The Western Allies were no match for the German military as the Battle of France had proved. The Western Allies were more or less defeated in 1941. Hitler had wiped out any resistance on the European continent. The Brits were hiding on their island and the only - rather symbolic - fighting that still took place at the Western Front was the war in Africa and the U-boat-war in the Atlantic. WWII would have been over in 1941, if Hitler hadn't decided to turn against his former ally Stalin, who had actually applied to join the axis and attacked Poland along with the German army. It was this stupid decision to start Operation Barbarossa against the advices of his generals that saved the word from being shared among each other by two totalitarian regimes - communism and fascism.
Then everything changed when the Russians turned out to be tougher than Germany had expected. The Germans had to throw all their resources to the Eastern Front where they were consumed by the overwhelming manpower and industrial resources of the USSR. When the German defeat finally became obvious for everybody, it allowed the UK to start an invasion in Italy and the Normandy during the last months of the war and to participate in the Russian victory.
The US joined the war as some British auxiliary force like Canada and others, when the real fighting was already over.
So it was Russia in the first place and the UK in the second place that defeated Germany. All the other participants in the war were insignificant. The US became the leading world power only AFTER the war, because they had not suffered the same losses as the UK, Russia or France, since they stayed neutral during most of the war.

Due to their heavy losses against the already retreating and hopelessly outnumbered German troops (twice as many casualties as in the Pacific theater in just a few months) Americans often tend to overestimate their participation in the war. This is the only reason why somebody can seriously ask the question of this thread. During both world wars America was still playing in the second league. They were none of the big players like Great Britain, France and Russia. Japan was in their league.

[Psychotic Mongooses]

Without US to mess with they could had changed their strategy and attack the Soviets in 1941 or maybe later

...again. The Japanese already lost to the Soviets years before any interaction with the Americans. Read the link. They would have no reasonable excuse to attack the Soviets, and break the non-aggression pact they signed. Go back on their word? The Japanese?

Oh come on... Were the British going to let Japan conquer all their colonies/dominions facing the Indian Ocean taking no action whatsoever?

....with their Navy? Hardly a likely prospect.

[Ralkovia]

The American contribution to the victory over Germany was close to zero.
It was the USSR that defeated Germany. It was in Russia where most of the fighting took place. Germany had 75% of their armed forces at the Eastern Front. The Western Allies were no match for the German military as the Battle of France had proved. The Western Allies were more or less defeated in 1941. Hitler had wiped out any resistance on the European continent. The Brits were hiding on their island and the only - rather symbolic - fighting that still took place at the Western Front was the war in Africa and the U-boat-war in the Atlantic. WWII would have been over in 1941, if Hitler hadn't decided to turn against his former ally Stalin, who had actually applied to join the axis and attacked Poland along with the German army. It was this stupid decision to start Operation Barbarossa against the advices of his generals that saved the word from being shared among each other by two totalitarian regimes - communism and fascism.
Then everything changed when the Russians turned out to be tougher than Germany had expected. The Germans had to throw all their resources to the Eastern Front where they were consumed by the overwhelming manpower and industrial resources of the USSR. When the German defeat finally became obvious for everybody, it allowed the UK to start an invasion in Italy and the Normandy during the last months of the war and to participate in the Russian victory.
The US joined the war as some British auxiliary force like Canada and others, when the real fighting was already over.
So it was Russia in the first place and the UK in the second place that defeated Germany. All the other participants in the war were insignificant. The US became the leading world power only AFTER the war, because they had not suffered the same losses as the UK, Russia or France, since they stayed neutral during most of the war.

Due to their heavy losses against the already retreating and hopelessly outnumbered German troops (twice as many casualties as in the Pacific theater in just a few months) Americans often tend to overestimate their participation in the war. This is the only reason why somebody can seriously ask the question of this thread. During both world wars America was still playing in the second league. They were none of the big players like Great Britain, France and Russia. Japan was in their league.

Your foolish enough to actually believe that. Russian industrial resources amounted to sending soldiers in mass. Even in Berlin the Russians used human wave tactics. You assume that the Russian industrial giant had at any point the power to fight Germany on its own. For every German soldier that died he took at least 5 Russians with him. Russia definitely could have fought a counter-attack of but it wouldn't have survived if it had tried to take Germany on its turf. Its estimated that the population of Russia would have been something like 240 million had they not been invaded.

[Rikese]

Yes, but they didn't have to engage US this time so the scenario changes.

Considering the border war happened years before any American action, and the Japanese still lost, the scenario hasn't changed. The Japanese didn't want tangle with the Soviets because of prior experience.

Without US to mess with they could had changed their strategy and attack the Soviets in 1941 or maybe later

Besides what's going to happen if the Royal Navy is going to face the Japanese fleet alone?

.... what? Are the Japanese Navy suddenly going to make an appearance in the Channel or something?

Oh come on... Were the British going to let Japan conquer all their colonies/dominions facing the Indian Ocean taking no action whatsoever?

Well without the US there wasn't very much they could do about it. Japan had several carriers with experienced air crews. Britain was trying to hold on to the Mediterranean and North Sea so they could support their armies in N. Africa and maintain their sea-routes.

[Dashret]

I would put it down as a definite 'maybe'. The Allies would've been much harder pressed without US material support. The Lend Lease agreement was what got the Soviets back on their feet as quickly as they did. And certainly the Soviets would have lost more than they did.

Siege of Leningrad, anybody? The ONLY reason that city held out was the allied supplies coming from the north. I don't disparage the efforts of the Red Army and Russian civilians who hauled those supplies, but without anything to haul they wouldn't mean much.

I would say that, minus the US support, the allies have an even chance of victory, defeat, or stalemate.

Considering the extra time the Germans would have, they might well end up being the first to develop the atomic bomb. Then again, they might not.

You can't really tell where history is going to go with these sort of scenarios.

[Ravea]

The Allies would not have lost. They might not have won, either, though.

America sped up the war quite a bit, though.