NationStates

I'm already regretting the decision to get involved in a thread like this, but hell, I've got an opinion that some people will disagree with too, might as well get it out there so it can reach it's full flame-baiting potential.
Well, at least I'm from a country that is neither Britain, Russia or America. So I would hope my opinions can be slightly less fuelled by nationalistic fervour than some of the opinions in this here thread.

If we're taking lend lease into account, and saying that no American involvement means no lend lease. I would assume that the same goes for the oil America was giving to Japan until it finally decided in 1941 that the army that was raping Chinese peasants weren't the nicest of buyers.
80% of Japan's oil at the time was from America, and I may not be an expert on the subject, but I assume that if we take American involvement out of the equation, and leave Japan with 80% less oil, they're going to have a lot of trouble. At least until they take over a few oil rich countries (which they did anyway after losing said American oil in real history), but the taking of said countries will be harder for them without the ability to so readily use the stuff that runs on oil, like planes, tanks and whatnot.

Now, on to lend lease itself.
I'm sure it helped, and it seems to be the base argument from the "yay" side of the argument, but I wouldn't consider it a pivotal aspect.
Lend Lease gave the other countries involved a little breathing space, in terms of costs. But with the exception of decent tanks sent to Britain, most of the hardware given could have been recreated by the country itself, even if it was at a cost. Britain would have eventually figured out how to make tanks that weren't pathetic and the Soviets would have quite easily been able to make a few hundred trains. I won't deny lend lease helped, but claiming it's the only reason un-America didn't wallow around in poverty seems a bit overzealous.

And again, noting the exception of tanks for the British, these lend lease vehicles had decent if not superior home-made alternatives.

Russians enjoyed the addition of American planes like the Aircobra and P-40, but they had also developed planes like the Yakolev and Mikoyan fighters, Sturmovik ground attack planes and Petlyakov dive bombers, all of which were very capable machines, which suffered early on due to the soviets horrendous command problems, but preformed on par with the Luftwaffe later in the war when Stalin realised that killing off experienced officers kind of damaged the ability for his army to be an experienced fighting force.
American tanks given to the Soviet union were generally regarded as inferior to stuff like the T-34 and IS-2 (And they were), which the USSR could churn out by the bucket load anyway.

British tanks, which really really sucked, were definitely inferior to American lend lease tanks like the Sherman. But I would think, that Britain realised it was severely lacking in the "tanks that don't suck ass" department and would have sought to fix that problem themselves if the easy and cheap option of getting some from America wasn't possible. They had a decent amount of time in which to do this as well, seeing as Hitler put operation sea lion on hold indefinitely after the battle of Britain.

British planes... I don't really have to say much about this do I?
I've already mentioned the battle of Britain.
Oh what the hell.





This is in 1940 by the way, before lend lease.
Britain does lose a rather sizeable amount of aircraft, and I assume that in history, Lend Lease might have been used to temporarily bridge the gap. But that wouldn't be necessary, as Germany certainly didn't know how large a proportion of aircraft Britain had lost, otherwise they would have continued. Britain could have safely repaired their aircraft numbers without more German attacks.

This has already been said by most of the fellows on the "nay" side, but again, just to hammer it home. The USSR was very much capable of defeating the German army. Early defeats were due to poor command, since Stalin killed off all his skilled officers in fear of them becoming skilled usurpers. That same early USSR also managed to lose a war against Finland. No offence meant to any Finnish fellows reading this, but it's just that you aren't the largest of nations, and yet, there's this. Still, later on the USSR got it's stuff sorted out and went on to take over as much of Europe as it could. I don't think lend lease was what fixed the soviet's command capabilities, so I will chalk this success up to the USSR itself.

North Africa was a front that might have suffered from the absence of American numbers and equipment, but depending on how fast Britain managed to fix it's tank problem, the African front could still be winnable, though it would take them a bit longer. The absence of America in the fighting sense would also mean that Australia and New Zealand would be less willing to have troops in Africa when the Japanese were closing in on their homeland, so North Africa would also lose those troops. Which leaves them with Canadians, free French, free Polish and Indian troops.

I suspect, that the Japanese would attempt to invade Australia and New Zealand at some point, especially Australia. But I think they might run into a bit of trouble in the latter, seeing as Australia's wildlife and environment alone could probably deal a significant blow to Japanese forces. New Zealand would not fare so well, we're a small country, most of our planes were from lend lease, our navy is tiny and we had only seven or eight coastal guns spread across the whole country. Unless Australia decided the help (and they probably would, after a period of pointing and laughing) we would be pretty screwed.

Australia and New Zealand (if not taken over) would still be semi-capable of at least holding off the Japanese by themselves. Once Germany surrenders, Russia (if they hadn't already) would then turn their attention to Japan, and the results of the soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945 suggests that they would slaughter them.

This is all speculation, but I consider the possibility of the axis ever winning ww2 to be laughable.
Italy couldn't fight to save itself, and the USSR or Britain by themselves could easily mop the floor with the minor axis nations like Romania and Bulgaria. So what it really boils down to is Germany and Japan fighting Poland, Australia, France, Canada, Britain, South Africa, New Zealand, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Greece, USSR, China, Yugoslavia and India.
In terms of fighting wars, Germany has had a long history of being complete baddasses and winning with inferior numbers. But in this case, it's a little too much of a number gap, even without the US.

The South Islands wrote:The Soviet Union vastly outnumbered the German Army in terms of (domestically produced) aircraft, tanks, artillery, and infantry (equipped with soviet manufactured small arms).

Not at the start of the war. You are assuming Russian production was in place and rolling out equipment. Hell; trucks alone was seriously in need. As were food and meds. The American tanks well? They didn't do much against the germans at that point.

Once Russian production was in full force; yes the game was over.

The actual questions should be:
- Without the Soviet Union would the Allies have lost WWII?
I'd say, yes. They already lost in 1941. There was not much fighting going on after the defeat of France that proved that the Allies had nothing to match German military superiority.
- Without Great Britain would the Allies have lost WWII?
I'd say, yes again. The USSR was able to defeated Germany by just a small margin. Any additional advantage for Germany could have changed the outcome of the war.

Anyway the US made the best out of their odds. They intervened at the right time and changed the fate of Europe significantly. An earlier intervention would have weakened them. A refusal to intervene could have caused Europe to fall into hands of the communists, because it would have slowed down the British advance in the West.
After all it was the best possible outcome.
The US wouldn't be the only superpower today, if they wouldn't always have made the right decisions.

Once either the US or the Soviet Union entered the War in Europe, Germany was doomed. Their industrial capacity could not have sustained them against either opponent - against both, it was almost overkill.
What the US DID do was save Western Europe from the SOVIETS. The Iron Curtain would have come down across the English Channel otherwise.

If Japan had not attacked the US, there probably still would have been war between them, merely later. The US and Japan were on a collision course over who would rule the Pacific.

Dododecapod wrote:Once either the US or the Soviet Union entered the War in Europe, Germany was doomed. Their industrial capacity could not have sustained them against either opponent - against both, it was almost overkill.
What the US DID do was save Western Europe from the SOVIETS. The Iron Curtain would have come down across the English Channel otherwise.
.

The idea that Germany never could have defeated the USSR is largely a myth. It is true that Operation Barbarossa, as it was conceived, has little chance of success; however, changes in logistical support for the campaign would have given army group center what it needed to take Moscow, and break the back of the soviet army.

Extremely likely. Remember, the US made a colossal contribution to the Soviet war effort in particular through lend-lease, supplying a huge share of their war material and a lot of equipment simply unavailable in comparable quantities in the USSR, particularly in the early years when the country suffered its most devastating losses against Germany. Without those supplies, there would be little chance of a successful Soviet resistance; at best, they could retreat until the limitations on German supply lines and forces became too great and negotiate peace from that stalemate. Also, even with a US embargo still in place the Japanese would have been able to devote their entire war effort towards defeating the Allies in Asia, and undoubtedly violating their nonaggression pact and attacking the Soviet Union once it began to falter, hitting their vulnerable rear front which had been depleted following the transfer of Soviet troops to the west.

Once the Soviets had been defeated, finishing off the remaining Allies would be an easy task now that the Germans would be able to focus entirely on the West. The Axis would have no problems obtaining any raw materials and with the Japanese successes in Asia key sources of those same materials for the Allies would be constrained as would significant amounts of manpower. Overall, without the sheer industrial resources of the United States and the corresponding loss of Soviet industrial capacity and manpower the Allies would have resoundingly lost against a united Axis front.

If anything, the bigger question is how long that new world order would hold up in the face of peace; the entire Nazi economy was geared towards war, and it's difficult to determine whether or not they could actually deal with a complete victory.

In Europe maybe, but the US contributed alot in the Pacific. If it wasn't for the US, Japan probably would have occupied Russia and the rest of China without the Embargo..

So 50% Yes 50% No. Won in Europe without USA? Yes.

Won in Pacific without USA? No.

I don't doubt that the Germans could have taken Moscow - it was a very close thing that they didn't. But I don't believe that would have meant the defeat of the Soviet Union, and I don't believe Germany had the resources to extend their control past the Urals even if everything had gone their way.

Ultimately, the logistics would have defeated the Germans. They didn't have the capacity to shift equipment and munitions that far reliably - the Soviets did, and more, had the capacity to rebuild everything they needed to fight on the Asian side. It might have taken another ten years - but the end result was a certainty.

United Russian State wrote:Of course not. The Soviet army was already fighting 70% of German forces. Germany could never win. The death toll would be higher and I think the war would last much longer, 1947 or 1948.

If the USA did not get involved, the British would fall and the resulting incidents would release several million of slave laborers into the German economy to use as all the men fit for service and the hundreds of thousands already in the Wehrmacht in the West would be brought to the East, thus maybe having Germany win the Eastern Front.

Other than that, i see no reason as to why Russia would flat out win

Psychotic Mongooses wrote:Without the US's direct involvement, the Allies would have still won via the USSR.

So, no. The Allies would not have lost WWII.

/end thread

Uh. Where was beloved Soviet Mother Russia when Stalin was making crude treaties with Adolf Hitler? Don't get me wrong, I respect Russia and it's one of my favorite countries besides the U.S. and Germany but the fact is, if the Nazis hadn't backstabbed Russia in the treaty, they probably would have been working for the Axis.

A better way to phrase it is to say that without the U.S., the Axis powers could have won. And by "won" I mean "gained control of a greater Germany and a greater Japan, and then forced the Allies to accept peace."

United Russian State wrote:Of course not. The Soviet army was already fighting 70% of German forces. Germany could never win. The death toll would be higher and I think the war would last much longer, 1947 or 1948.

Allies would have lost. While the US military contribution was far, far less than that of the Soviet Union, the US provided the material and economic support needed to keep the allied war effort moving. Without the US loans and contributions, Britain and the Soviets fall.

German Capitalists wrote:
Uh. Where was beloved Soviet Mother Russia when Stalin was making crude treaties with Adolf Hitler? Don't get me wrong, I respect Russia and it's one of my favorite countries besides the U.S. and Germany but the fact is, if the Nazis hadn't backstabbed Russia in the treaty, they probably would have been working for the Axis.

Nahh. Nazi's didn't like the communists. Look what they did with the communists in Germany......

The Black Forrest wrote:

The South Islands wrote:The Soviet Union vastly outnumbered the German Army in terms of (domestically produced) aircraft, tanks, artillery, and infantry (equipped with soviet manufactured small arms).

Not at the start of the war. You are assuming Russian production was in place and rolling out equipment. Hell; trucks alone was seriously in need. As were food and meds. The American tanks well? They didn't do much against the germans at that point.

Once Russian production was in full force; yes the game was over.

You took my quote out of context. My point was that the Soviet Union did have the industry to sustain a war effort without the help of the United States. Once Germany failed to knock the Soviet Union out of the war early, it was game over.

Which brings me back to my original point. The Soviet Union was the single decisive factor in World War II. The USA, UK, and other allies were not needed to defeat Germany. Their efforts are completely and utterly irrelevant.

Trippoli wrote:In Europe maybe, but the US contributed alot in the Pacific. If it wasn't for the US, Japan probably would have occupied Russia and the rest of China without the Embargo..

So 50% Yes 50% No. Won in Europe without USA? Yes.

Won in Pacific without USA? No.

A pacific war probably would not have started if the US remained neutral like in the early days of World War I.

The South Islands wrote:

Trippoli wrote:In Europe maybe, but the US contributed alot in the Pacific. If it wasn't for the US, Japan probably would have occupied Russia and the rest of China without the Embargo..

So 50% Yes 50% No. Won in Europe without USA? Yes.

Won in Pacific without USA? No.

A pacific war probably would not have started if the US remained neutral like in the early days of World War I.

just a south and west pacific war

Wilconson wrote:

The South Islands wrote:

Trippoli wrote:In Europe maybe, but the US contributed alot in the Pacific. If it wasn't for the US, Japan probably would have occupied Russia and the rest of China without the Embargo..

So 50% Yes 50% No. Won in Europe without USA? Yes.

Won in Pacific without USA? No.

A pacific war probably would not have started if the US remained neutral like in the early days of World War I.

just a south and west pacific war

What would be the point? The US would provide plenty of oil at reasonable prices to the Japanese. Certainly less expensive then conquering more land. Without America, there is no Pacific War on any large scale.

Being a Skip, and a former soldier, I'm confident to say that Aus would have been royally stuffed if not for the USN at the Battle of Australia....

Diggers may have stopped the Japanese advance on land - inflicting the first defeats on the Japanese Army and chasing the Japanese Southern Army across Borneo and driving it into the sea - but that would not have been possible without the USN providing fire support and logistics.

Perhaps, had the majority of our forces not been tied up in Europe and North Africa, we might have been able to defend Aus without the US, but I doubt it.

The South Islands wrote:What would be the point? The US would provide plenty of oil at reasonable prices to the Japanese. Certainly less expensive then conquering more land. Without America, there is no Pacific War on any large scale.

Yes, their primary focus was on conquering mainland China and to a lesser extent the Soviet Far East; the only reason Japan moved south was due to the war with the US and its allies. Without a US embargo, there would be little reason to move on the rest of Asia (immediately, at least, since the odds of an independent US-Japanese conflict would have remained very high even after the conclusion of Japan's wars in the region), let alone launching any kind of offensives against Burma, India, or Australia/New Zealand.

The South Islands wrote:
You took my quote out of context. My point was that the Soviet Union did have the industry to sustain a war effort without the help of the United States. Once Germany failed to knock the Soviet Union out of the war early, it was game over.

Which brings me back to my original point. The Soviet Union was the single decisive factor in World War II. The USA, UK, and other allies were not needed to defeat Germany. Their efforts are completely and utterly irrelevant.

You over simplify. The industry wasn't in place at the start.

No Britain means no Battle of Britain. Barbarossa would have been different with those air forces available. Let's not forget the forces diverted to Africa, the Atlantic, etc.

i would have to say probably rather then for sure. the way i was taught about that is that america's productive capacity at the time, more then its military participation, although that certainly contributed signifigantly too, is what carried the day.

the same productive capacity, which just incidently, mostly over the past 30 years, since ragun, it has transfered off shore. which along with his union bashing, was really the begining of the suicide of what america had been since f.d.r., pretty much up until that time.

The Black Forrest wrote:

The South Islands wrote:
You took my quote out of context. My point was that the Soviet Union did have the industry to sustain a war effort without the help of the United States. Once Germany failed to knock the Soviet Union out of the war early, it was game over.

Which brings me back to my original point. The Soviet Union was the single decisive factor in World War II. The USA, UK, and other allies were not needed to defeat Germany. Their efforts are completely and utterly irrelevant.

You over simplify. The industry wasn't in place at the start.

No Britain means no Battle of Britain. Barbarossa would have been different with those air forces available. Let's not forget the forces diverted to Africa, the Atlantic, etc.

The industry was there. As implied by the production figures of Soviet factories after they had been retooled for war production. The Soviets made huge strides in heavy industry during the prewar 5 year plans. Their industry was second only to the United States. They practically outproduced everyone in direct war materials during the course of the war. German industry was simply inferior to Soviet. With German tanks unable to breach Moscow and beat the Russians in that first hammer blow, the war was over.

Other fronts are irrelevant. Resources expended during the Battle of Britain, France, operations in the low countries and North Africa are irrelevant when compared to the number of men and machines deployed (and consumed) by fighting in the East. Nothing else mattered except population and industry, which the Soviet Union was superior to Nazi Germany in both.

The South Islands wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:

The South Islands wrote:
You took my quote out of context. My point was that the Soviet Union did have the industry to sustain a war effort without the help of the United States. Once Germany failed to knock the Soviet Union out of the war early, it was game over.

Which brings me back to my original point. The Soviet Union was the single decisive factor in World War II. The USA, UK, and other allies were not needed to defeat Germany. Their efforts are completely and utterly irrelevant.

You over simplify. The industry wasn't in place at the start.

No Britain means no Battle of Britain. Barbarossa would have been different with those air forces available. Let's not forget the forces diverted to Africa, the Atlantic, etc.

The industry was there. As implied by the production figures of Soviet factories after they had been retooled for war production. The Soviets made huge strides in heavy industry during the prewar 5 year plans. Their industry was second only to the United States. They practically outproduced everyone in direct war materials during the course of the war. German industry was simply inferior to Soviet. With German tanks unable to breach Moscow and beat the Russians in that first hammer blow, the war was over.

Other fronts are irrelevant. Resources expended during the Battle of Britain, France, operations in the low countries and North Africa are irrelevant when compared to the number of men and machines deployed (and consumed) by fighting in the East. Nothing else mattered except population and industry, which the Soviet Union was superior to Nazi Germany in both.

While the "allies" might have eventually "won" the war without America, it would have come at a much higher cost. Germany would not have had to split forces between the eastern and western fronts, Japan would have joined the war against the USSR which would compound their troubles, and while Britain could prevent Operation Sea Lion, they would not have been able to stage the liberation of France without American help. Eventually the Allies could have won (although it would have taken much longer and cost many more lives), but the world would be completely different today. France and all of Germany would have become part of the Iron Curtain, and the same would have occurred with Japan. America would have never become the global power it is now, and the USSR would have undoubtedly controlled world affairs. The USA would not have developed the nuclear bomb - either the Germans or the Soviets would have. Who knows what could have happened then. The UN would have never been formed, with it's grasp over world politics, the USSR would never allow itself to be lowered to the level of the UK and America. Germany and Japan would have never developed into the nations they are today, depriving the US of some of it's largest trading partners.

Would the allies have lost WW2 without America? Possibly so, possibly not. But the "allies" as we would refer to France, Britain, and America would have never developed into what they are today. The USSR (even if it collapsed) would have still ruined the economic recuperation of the war ravaged nations, and the circumstances which drove the US to become the power we know it as would have never existed. The question of "would the allies have won the war" is a complex one - yes, they might have won, but at what cost? France would have been "liberated" from one tyrannous nation to another, Britain would stand on the brink of invasion still, and the US would be incapable of defending them.

Probably not...the Germans and Japanese were never going to coordinate to the degree necessary to ensure victory.

If we assume American absence, the best bet would have been for the IJN to defeat the RN in the Indian Ocean, then bypass India and harrass the British in North Africa from the Red Sea with carrier based planes. Once Germany forces a breakthrough, Arabia falls to the Axis. Russia would soon be encircled, and could be dealt with, albeit slowly.

They were never going to do such a thing, however, and Japan was not going to get anywhere in Russia from the east with only one rail line for logistics and posessing no real land based mechanized warfare.

The Axis had no real opportunity or incentive to help one another, while Britain and Russia did.

Now if you assume American absence AND a full war economy from Germany starting in 1940, then you might have the makings of an Axis victory.