Without America Would the Allies have lost WWII?

[Maerngau]

When Nazi failed to conquer England in a short time, they attacked Russian for petrol reserves to continue the war with Churchill. Then they lost aganist Russia, and the east german empire got erased by Russian army in no time. Americans were more useful in Italy and the german allies country, but the allies won the war WITHOUT USA.

So my answer is no.

The Russians fought the Germans for FOUR YEARS while the Germans were also engaged in N. Africa and Italy and in garrison duty in the rest of Europe.

If the dice had rolled the other way at Moscow, or had Hitler not been a strategic putz, Russia most likely would have lost. As it is, Russia lost something like 25 million people. Please don't minimize the struggle (and by extension,, their contribution to it.)

[Maerngau]

Lend Lease was simply that, US economic stimulus. Sure, it was nice, but is surely was not vital. The Soviet Union would have won anyway, probably on about the same timetable. Naturally, this would have lead to a soviet dominated continental Europe. One wonders how Britain would have faired had Europe indeed become Communist.

The transportation capabilities of the USSR would have been vastly insufficient without the massive influx of US-built trains and trucks. There is no way they could have adequately supplied their front lines or moved their army to maintain coherent resistance to German advances. Lend-Lease was vital to Soviet survival.

Thank you.

SOOOO much fanboiism in this thread.

[Maerngau]

yes, more so for the supplies, which the Us started sending in 1939, then the personnel. Soviet estimates at the time have american supplies counting for nearly 50% of the raw materials they had for use on the battlefield.

/thread.

[Alsium]

No, without the Soviet Union we would have lost however. When the USA first joined in the war they were TERRIBLE and more of a hinderance for the Allies than a help. Watch some documentaries on the USA when they first joined in WW2 and you will see how useless they were at the beginning, especially in North Africa where they were getting mauled to death and Montgomery had to tell them to get their bloody act together. Of course they picked up and gradually got better but it wasn't until D-Day where they were of any major use in the actual warfare-Battles

[Psychotic Mongooses]

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

Nope.


YES, the Russkies did most of the heavy lifting (by far) but they did not have the supplies and resources to fight Germany alone.

Which is why I said "direct involvement".

[Farnhamia]

Yeah, but Hitler didn't want England, he wanted his Deputy Fuhrer (Rudolph Hess) back, and wanted more troops to contribute to the War against Russia, which was in its preparation stages. With England's Pacific Colonies at risk from Japan,and most of the Military in England waiting for Sealion, and the fact they couldn't beat back Rommel in North Africa without Operation Torch, they would has sued for peace on Germany's Terms, i.e., giving Germany England's Middle Eastern Territories. With Hitler's Anti-Semnitism fueling his war, much of the Arab world at the time would obviously enter the war on his side, he might have gotten Turkey on board in the war with England out of the Game with Hitler promising to bring back the Ottoman Empire for them. With that, he could have gotten the Soviet Oil Supply within a week of invading from the Middle East and from Eastern Europe as well. If that happened, Russia would have to fight on two fronts, the Caucus', where much of their Industry was located, and most of the Eastern Front. Stalingrad would have fallen within the first few months before the winter, allowing the Germans to attack Moscow from the West. Russia would loose support of their people and the government would collapse on itself, Hitler would have gained everything in Europe and now no major power opposed him in Europe and now, without America at war, they would never be a Superpower, and Germany would now catch the English with most of their troops in Asia. He would have invaded England, probably taken it, moved on to Ireland, get Spain to enter the war on his side, then invade the rest of British Territory alongside Japan, crushing the one mighty British Empire. The would have then moved on to Invade Canada, which the Germans could bring down. From that, they could invade an America that is still behind technologically with the Germans creating the Jet Fighter, King Tiger Tanks, Nuclear Weapon, etc.. Hitler would invade, America's Homefront would not be that efficient with the German Military 5-10 years more advanced than the Isolated U.S., and with the German Air superiority with Jets, they could have eliminated the homefront all together and America would have probably lost the war within a year.

Sounds like a Risk game I was in once, huge armies sweeping from country to country, conquering everything.

Are you assuming that there was no attack on Pearl Harbor and the US was not involved at all in any of the fighting going on? I doubt the Japanese would have let Hitler talk them out of that, their whole strategy in the Pacific seems to have hinged on knocking out the American fleet. So once Pearl Harbor happened, we'd be in it. Once that happened, we'd have started pumoing supplies across the Atlantic faster than we already were, and it wouldn't have taken much - a merchant ship sunk by a U-Boat - to have us declare war on Germany. Of course, Hitler saved us the trouble by declaring war on us first. So really, assuming America out of the war doesn't work unless one rearranges the history of the five years preceding 1941 and the development of Japanese strategy.

However, assuming we weren't in, I don't see Germany needing to invade the US. I imagine the some sort of Isolationist government would have come to power here and made a treaty with the Third Reich. I'm not sure how well they'd have done, invading. This is an awfully big country, you know. It's actually farther from Chicago to New Orleans than it is from Berlin to Moscow. I could see the Germans seizing some coastal areas, but inland? Not so much.

But on the bright side, your dreams of a Big Germany would be realized.

[United States of PA]

What i think would happen would be the Starving of the UK due to lack of Food Shipments getting in. A far longer war on the Eastern Front, lasting until maybe 48-50. And a loss in Asia seeing as the Russian Fleet would be to ineffective to go after the Heart of Japan itself and the Brit fleet would probably be near Non-Existent after a Longer Battle of the Atlantic.

[Farnhamia]

What i think would happen would be the Starving of the UK due to lack of Food Shipments getting in. A far longer war on the Eastern Front, lasting until maybe 48-50. And a loss in Asia seeing as the Russian Fleet would be to ineffective to go after the Heart of Japan itself and the Brit fleet would probably be near Non-Existent after a Longer Battle of the Atlantic.

Assuming the US stopped all shipments to Britain, I suppose that might happen. The whole premise here is that the US did absolutely nothing, which is unreasonable, I think.

[United States of PA]

What i think would happen would be the Starving of the UK due to lack of Food Shipments getting in. A far longer war on the Eastern Front, lasting until maybe 48-50. And a loss in Asia seeing as the Russian Fleet would be to ineffective to go after the Heart of Japan itself and the Brit fleet would probably be near Non-Existent after a Longer Battle of the Atlantic.

Assuming the US stopped all shipments to Britain, I suppose that might happen. The whole premise here is that the US did absolutely nothing, which is unreasonable, I think.

No what i was thinking was that the Wolf Packs would've been far more effective due to less Escorts because American wasnt sending any, not that America stopped the Shipments, just due to lack of Escorts.

[Jazenn]

Without the U.S., they may or may not have won WWII. Seeing as the U.S. beat Japan and helped liberate Western Europe, if they hadn't entered the war, it would have been a lot costlier and longer.

[Farnhamia]

You know what's a better question? What would have happened had Hitler put off attacking Russia and gone ahead with the invasion of Britain instead? With Britain out of the war - assuming the Germans won, of course - there's nowhere to build up the huge force needed to invade Europe in 1944. And no Allies for the US to work with. I could see some kind of watchful peace, the US and Germany glaring at each other across the Atlantic. It would all depend on whether the Japanese dragged us into the war in the Pacific, of course.

[JuNii]

without American involvement...

hard to say. after all, are we talking no shipments, nothing from the very beginning?

or are we talking that the attack on Pearl Harbor was successful in achieving what the Japanese wanted? or are we even assuming that Pearl Harbor wasn't attacked at all?

if no involvement from the beginning, I would say, chances are, the Allies would've lost.

but if we're only talking about military involvement... that's iffy. after all, Germany developed the Jet Aircraft and Missiles when they already lost the war but that was with America involved. would the development of missiles and the jet fighter turn the tide towards Germany enough for them to recover and give them time to complete the Atomic Bomb? hard to say... too many variables.

[GAT POPPERS]

NO Because when we dropped the bomb on japan they surrendered if we had not done that the war would have went on seeing the japs were not taking defeat as an option . plus the allied troops would have been spread out to thin . with america in the pacific britian and russia could focus on gemany.

[Merasia]

Uhh guys, the USSR was supplied tanks and artillry by the U.S. In fact, the USSR didn't win a single battle against Germany until they received those tanks. Look it up.

I'm not saying the allies wouldn't win without American involvement, but I do think this is more debatable than some of you realize.

[Farnhamia]

NO Because when we dropped the bomb on japan they surrendered if we had not done that the war would have went on seeing the japs were not taking defeat as an option . plus the allied troops would have been spread out to thin . with america in the pacific britian and russia could focus on gemany.

Yes, the war in the Pacific would have been much longer and considerably bloodier without the Bomb. Remember, though, we didn't drop the Bombs until after Germany had surrendered. And anyway, we're not talking about that, we're talking about whether the enemies of Germany and Japan would have lost the war without any American involvement.

without American involvement...

hard to say. after all, are we talking no shipments, nothing from the very beginning?

or are we talking that the attack on Pearl Harbor was successful in achieving what the Japanese wanted? or are we even assuming that Pearl Harbor wasn't attacked at all?

if no involvement from the beginning, I would say, chances are, the Allies would've lost.

but if we're only talking about military involvement... that's iffy. after all, Germany developed the Jet Aircraft and Missiles when they already lost the war but that was with America involved. would the development of missiles and the jet fighter turn the tide towards Germany enough for them to recover and give them time to complete the Atomic Bomb? hard to say... too many variables.
without American involvement...

hard to say. after all, are we talking no shipments, nothing from the very beginning?

or are we talking that the attack on Pearl Harbor was successful in achieving what the Japanese wanted? or are we even assuming that Pearl Harbor wasn't attacked at all?

if no involvement from the beginning, I would say, chances are, the Allies would've lost.

but if we're only talking about military involvement... that's iffy. after all, Germany developed the Jet Aircraft and Missiles when they already lost the war but that was with America involved. would the development of missiles and the jet fighter turn the tide towards Germany enough for them to recover and give them time to complete the Atomic Bomb? hard to say... too many variables.

Yeah, too many variables.

[GAT POPPERS]

Without america the war would have been longer . And im not sayin we would have lost but imagin d day without america

[Farnhamia]

Uhh guys, the USSR was supplied tanks and artillry by the U.S. In fact, the USSR didn't win a single battle against Germany until they received those tanks. Look it up.

I'm not saying the allies wouldn't win without American involvement, but I do think this is more debatable than some of you realize.

The US tanks supplied to the Russians were generally inferior to the German tanks they were sent against. Artillery I don't know. What we mostly sent them was food and vehicles for logistical support, and some aircraft. This allowed them to feed their soldiers and to concentrate their industry on making tanks (T-34, anyone?) and other armaments. Heck, even during the Seige of Leningrad, Soviet factories were turning out tanks which were then driven literally down the road to the front, about a mile away.

I do agree that without American support of any kind, the Allies either lose or make the best treaties they can. With Lend-Lease and no troops, I think they hold longer.

[United States of PA]

Actually, the M4 Sherman was superior to German tanks until the Panzer 4 was refitted with the High Velocity Gun.

[Farnhamia]

Actually, the M4 Sherman was superior to German tanks until the Panzer 4 was refitted with the High Velocity Gun.

Hmmm ... I stand corrected.

[United States of PA]

Actually, the M4 Sherman was superior to German tanks until the Panzer 4 was refitted with the High Velocity Gun.

Hmmm ... I stand corrected.

Yea, it wasnt until than that most Allied Tanks were Inferior.

[GAT POPPERS]

Just ,think what if japan never bombed pearl harbor america wouldnt have entered

[Farnhamia]

Just ,think what if japan never bombed pearl harbor america wouldnt have entered

And that's really the question, I think. Germany and Japan were allies but they didn't coordinate their foreign policy. Had they done that, the Allies would have been seriously screwed. Or war strategy, really.

[Sdaeriji]

Just ,think what if japan never bombed pearl harbor america wouldnt have entered

And that's really the question, I think. Germany and Japan were allies but they didn't coordinate their foreign policy. Had they done that, the Allies would have been seriously screwed. Or war strategy, really.

Japan had to declare war on the US, before US embargos starved the Japanese war machine into surrender. If anything, less foreign policy coordination was necessary. After Japan did not declare war on the USSR with Germany and her allies, there was no reason for Germany to stand alongside Japan in a war with the US that Hitler definitely did not want at that time. Germany should have just let Japan fight the US alone and not give the Americans an invitation to the war in Europe.

[Farnhamia]

Another Scenario-

*snip*

Okay, well ... You've obviously thought quite a bit about this. I think you erred in calling Italy an "Eastern European" nation to be incorporated in "Germania," and then listed Italy alongside the countries opposing the Japanese Empire. Also, and this is a quibble, I doubt it would have been "Germania." That's a Latin word and not good German.

It's fun sometimes to imagine like this. I'm glad it turned out the way it did, though. I think a world under the Nazis would be a terrible place. Of course, I probably wouldn't have been born.

[Farnhamia]

Well, if the world was Nazi controlled, you would think it was a Great Place having no idea what actually happened and not knowing what Democracy was.

Very true.