Without America Would the Allies have lost WWII?

[Farnhamia]

I believe that without the US intervening on both fronts (Europe and Japan) the Allies would have lost. My reason is:

Japan would have kept expanding its empire into the Pacific. And when they reached US borders, the US would be so involved in fighting Japan we would not have enough troops to fight in Europe. Everyone know that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in December 7, 1941. If we had not declaired war on them and remained neurtal by May of 1942 Japanese forces probably would be in California. We would be fighting them on our own soil. The concentration would have been so high in the west that by the time the planning of D-Day started there would be a severe strain on the troops that Normandy's Invasion would not have been successful. I feel that if Normandy was not successful than Russia would have been on its own in fighting Gremany since France and Brittian were all but defeated anyway by that time. Also I picture Japan eventually allying itself with Germany and then together would have eventually conquered the whole world and even Germany would have invaded the US on the east and they would have fought inward. So it was either compress Germany on both sides or have Germany and Japan compressing the US on both sides.

Well ... I don't know that Japan had plans to invade the United States mainland (I haven't run out and researched this, mind). The attack on Pearl Harbor was, as far as I know, an attempt to eliminate the Pacific Fleet so it couldn't oppose Japan's attacks on US possessions in the Pacific.

There is really no way the US would not have declared war on Japan after such a blatant act of war. If President Roosevelt had not made his "day that will live in infamy" speech on December 8th and asked for a declaration of war, he'd have been driven from office.

Those two points alone invalidate the rest of your proposition. Besides those, Hitler declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor, we didn't have to bother declaring war on him.

There was some discussion, I believe, of concentrating US efforts against Japan and not sending substantial numbers of troops to Europe until such time as they could be spared from the Pacific theatre, but this plan was (obviously) not adopted.

[Dyakovo]

And there was me thinking the RAF carried out most of the bombing runs on Germany...

In terms of tonnage, American and British forces dropped almost an identical amount.

... although in terms of tonnage actually hitting the intended targets -- when those weren't just whole cities, anyway -- I suspect that the British (& foreign units that were effectively flying as part of the RAF, such as the Canadians or the Free Poles...) might have been a bit further ahead.

Considering the fact that the US did daytime bombing and had the Norden bombsight whilst the RAF did night bombing and lacked the Norden bombsight I highly doubt it...

[Bears Armed]

In terms of tonnage, American and British forces dropped almost an identical amount.

... although in terms of tonnage actually hitting the intended targets -- when those weren't just whole cities, anyway -- I suspect that the British (& foreign units that were effectively flying as part of the RAF, such as the Canadians or the Free Poles...) might have been a bit further ahead.

Considering the fact that the US did daytime bombing and had the Norden bombsight whilst the RAF did night bombing and lacked the Norden bombsight I highly doubt it...

Considering that the USAAF dropped its bombs from very high altitudes, whereas the RAF generally went in at significantly lower ones which made aiming easier, and that the RAF deployed special 'Pathfinder' squadrons to mark the targets for the following wave[s] of bombers whereas the USAAF didn't...
(And do you have a citable source for the RAF totally lacking the Norden bombsight? I seem to recall reading about its use by at least some British bomber squadrons, somewhere...)

[Dyakovo]

(And do you have a citable source for the RAF totally lacking the Norden bombsight? I seem to recall reading about its use by at least some British bomber squadrons, somewhere...)

Hmmm, really?
I'll have to check into that, I was unaware of them having them...

Okay, after checking into it a bit (quickly I admit), the B-17s the RAF had were equipped with Norden Bombsights and in addition starting in '43 they had their own equivalent: The SABS.

[Nurmiland]

I believe that without the US intervening on both fronts (Europe and Japan) the Allies would have lost. My reason is:

Japan would have kept expanding its empire into the Pacific. And when they reached US borders, the US would be so involved in fighting Japan we would not have enough troops to fight in Europe. Everyone know that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in December 7, 1941. If we had not declaired war on them and remained neurtal by May of 1942 Japanese forces probably would be in California. We would be fighting them on our own soil. The concentration would have been so high in the west that by the time the planning of D-Day started there would be a severe strain on the troops that Normandy's Invasion would not have been successful. I feel that if Normandy was not successful than Russia would have been on its own in fighting Gremany since France and Brittian were all but defeated anyway by that time. Also I picture Japan eventually allying itself with Germany and then together would have eventually conquered the whole world and even Germany would have invaded the US on the east and they would have fought inward. So it was either compress Germany on both sides or have Germany and Japan compressing the US on both sides.

Well ... I don't know that Japan had plans to invade the United States mainland (I haven't run out and researched this, mind). The attack on Pearl Harbor was, as far as I know, an attempt to eliminate the Pacific Fleet so it couldn't oppose Japan's attacks on US possessions in the Pacific.

There is really no way the US would not have declared war on Japan after such a blatant act of war. If President Roosevelt had not made his "day that will live in infamy" speech on December 8th and asked for a declaration of war, he'd have been driven from office.

Those two points alone invalidate the rest of your proposition. Besides those, Hitler declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor, we didn't have to bother declaring war on him.

There was some discussion, I believe, of concentrating US efforts against Japan and not sending substantial numbers of troops to Europe until such time as they could be spared from the Pacific theatre, but this plan was (obviously) not adopted.

I can see where you are comming from. But what do you think would have happened if the US did consentrate more so on fightging Japan and then, after Germany declared war on the US and then there was not have enough American troops to fight in Europe?

Personally, I believe if the US followed that path The Axis (Germany and Italy mainly) would possibly have outnumbered the Allies of the US. (Not counting France since they were already took over when we did get there.)

You know how I mentioned Russia? I did not mention the fact that Russia was actually invaded (unsucessfully) twice by the Germans. I feel that Germany's invasion of Russia was unsucessful was because both were done in the winter. What if Germany got smart after their first flop at invadeing Russia and decided to wait until the spring and summer to invade them the second time? What would have happened?
Remember that in the WWI the Russians pulled out because of issues in the homeland. I believe, therefore that if Germany was sucessful with its second invasion of Russia and penetrated to Moscow, Russia would have had most of there troops fighting in there homeland.

OK now where would that leave Brittian. They were being attacked before D-Day (even though by air). Would we have taken Normandy if the senario with the US had occured (having a higher consentration in Japan/the Pacific) and less troops ready for D-Day? What would have happened if we failed at D-Day? Would D-Day have been moved to a different date instead fo June 6, 1944? Could it have been in '45 or '46 after we defeated Japan and therefore causeing the war in Europe to last until '48 or '49? Would such a delay cause Europe be virtually defeated if such a delay did occur? Those are some serious questions that I feel may have been asked by many during that time.

[Shinkadomayaka]

Would they have lost? I dunno. It would have been longer and tougher, and the eastern world might look a lot different, but eventually I doubt the americans would just sit around. It's just not our nature to let a war to go on without us.

[Rise-Takeba]

If we had not declaired war on them and remained neurtal by May of 1942 Japanese forces probably would be in California. We would be fighting them on our own soil.

Japan didn't have the manpower to attack the States. The Americans would have held them off easy. And not to mention there is no way the amount of ships needed for an invasion would be allowed anywhere near America without provoking them.

The concentration would have been so high in the west that by the time the planning of D-Day started there would be a severe strain on the troops that Normandy's Invasion would not have been successful. I feel that if Normandy was not successful than Russia would have been on its own in fighting Gremany since France and Brittian were all but defeated anyway by that time.

The only reason D-Day would have been unsuccessful is because the Americans couldn't help plan it. Britain and Canada played important parts in D-Day, and it isn't beyond reasoning that Australia would have taken part of D-Day if America wasn't in the war. While D-Day as we know it probably would have failed without American involvment, thats not to say the lack of American involvment wouldn't have helped create a D-Day invasion of Britain-Canada-Australia.

And, correction. France was defeated. That's why we had to liberate them, remember?

Also I picture Japan eventually allying itself with Germany and then together would have eventually conquered the whole world and even Germany would have invaded the US on the east and they would have fought inward. So it was either compress Germany on both sides or have Germany and Japan compressing the US on both sides.

Japan and Germany (And Italy) were all Allies since the beginning of the war. Say the Germans defeated the Soviets and then took over Britain; America would not have stood by and watched it happen. If Germany did ever make it to the States, the Americans would be too strong for them. And I'm not sure Japan could have ever fully defeated China as well, so the majority of their forces would be tied up. Now, if Germany had gotten the bomb and then invaded, nothing would really stop in their way.

[Kurdazistan]

Significance?

[Maurepas]

Depends on what you mean by "Allies", I would think that Britain would have eventually fallen, and France would remain German...

Until the Soviet Union Overran all of them, and Europe and its colonies fell into chaos...

EDIT:wait, this is a zombie thread, shit...*infected* lol...

[Dazchan]

It certainly would have been a lot more difficult, but I don't think anyone can say with certainty either way.

[Mykola]

Yes they would have lost because it was specifically the US's manpower, combined with the USSR that ultimately won World War Two. Without the US Japan would have had no enemy in the Pacific, they would've taken the entire pacific from the European powers, taken China, India and so forth. They would've opened a second front in Siberia as well. It was because of the US that Japan could not concentrate all of its effort towards expansion, but defending itself. The US also played an extremely vital role in supplying Britain during the Blitz and producing war goods throughout the war for the allies. Without the US Britain would have succumbed to the German Blitz, they would not have in turn been able to supply their African Corps and there would've never been any invasion of Sicily or D-Day. It was American manpower, and industrial might that ultimately saved the allies. Russian could not have been able to supply Britain with goods because, quite frankly Germany had cut it off from the North Sea's. Russia would've been annihilated by Operation Barborossa, as well as the Afrika Corps who would've broken through the poorly supplied and equipped troops of General Montogomery and swung up into the caucasus. Germany would have no two fronts to fight, Operation Sealion would've been carried out, Japan would've taken the whole Pacific and moved to destroy Russia from the East and Germany would've captured the Middle East, the allies would not stand a chance.

[Bavin]

Yes they would have lost because it was specifically the US's manpower, combined with the USSR that ultimately won World War Two. Without the US Japan would have had no enemy in the Pacific, they would've taken the entire pacific from the European powers, taken China, India and so forth. They would've opened a second front in Siberia as well. It was because of the US that Japan could not concentrate all of its effort towards expansion, but defending itself. The US also played an extremely vital role in supplying Britain during the Blitz and producing war goods throughout the war for the allies. Without the US Britain would have succumbed to the German Blitz, they would not have in turn been able to supply their African Corps and there would've never been any invasion of Sicily or D-Day. It was American manpower, and industrial might that ultimately saved the allies. Russian could not have been able to supply Britain with goods because, quite frankly Germany had cut it off from the North Sea's. Russia would've been annihilated by Operation Barborossa, as well as the Afrika Corps who would've broken through the poorly supplied and equipped troops of General Montogomery and swung up into the caucasus. Germany would have no two fronts to fight, Operation Sealion would've been carried out, Japan would've taken the whole Pacific and moved to destroy Russia from the East and Germany would've captured the Middle East, the allies would not stand a chance.

I think you've overlooked the fact that besides Lend-Lease the US was not involved until 1943, when Germany was already on the run in Russia following Stalingrad. I'm pretty sure the Brits had solid dominance of the Med as well, because Rommel had supply problems before US forces arrived in Algeria, even before El Alamain, while Montgomery was well supplied from India. I'm also fairly sure that the UK would have held off the blitz without US supplies and manpower.

[Robarya]

Keep in mind that in a scenario in which the U.S. hadn't been at war with Germany, the historical outcome would might be different from what actually happened. For instance, because of the American entrance in the war, Germany was forced to maintain an offensive strategy on the eastern front, since it would otherwise have crumbled under the weight of the combined Russian and American resources, as it did historically. That said, Russia still had an advantage as it was when they held out during Barbarossa, because of its greater industrial capacity, natural resources (esp. when it came to oil) and human resources, so chances are Russia would have won anyways. Other than that Russia received significant aid through the Lend & Lease from the United States, before the Americans and Germans were at war with each other. However, Germany would at least have had a far better chance, since they would have been able to employ a more defensive strategy. It could very well have been possible to bled Russia dry of manpower in a war of attrition, considering the Germans conquered a large portion of Russia's manpower base during Barbarossa (Ukraine and Belarus).

[Maurepas]

I think you've overlooked the fact that besides Lend-Lease the US was not involved until 1943, when Germany was already on the run in Russia following Stalingrad.

Youre overlooking the fact that the US entered the war in 1941,

[Robarya]

Yes they would have lost because it was specifically the US's manpower, combined with the USSR that ultimately won World War Two. Without the US Japan would have had no enemy in the Pacific, they would've taken the entire pacific from the European powers, taken China, India and so forth. They would've opened a second front in Siberia as well. It was because of the US that Japan could not concentrate all of its effort towards expansion, but defending itself. The US also played an extremely vital role in supplying Britain during the Blitz and producing war goods throughout the war for the allies. Without the US Britain would have succumbed to the German Blitz, they would not have in turn been able to supply their African Corps and there would've never been any invasion of Sicily or D-Day. It was American manpower, and industrial might that ultimately saved the allies. Russian could not have been able to supply Britain with goods because, quite frankly Germany had cut it off from the North Sea's. Russia would've been annihilated by Operation Barborossa, as well as the Afrika Corps who would've broken through the poorly supplied and equipped troops of General Montogomery and swung up into the caucasus. Germany would have no two fronts to fight, Operation Sealion would've been carried out, Japan would've taken the whole Pacific and moved to destroy Russia from the East and Germany would've captured the Middle East, the allies would not stand a chance.

America certainly played a key role in the war, but Germany and Britain were at a stalemate. Germany lacked the proper navy to invade the British Isles, while the British lacked a strong enough army to invade Festung Europa. The British had plenty of resources on their own, and would have survived the war with or without American military interference, unless Germany had successfully defeated Russia and afterwards built a large navy to match the Royal Navy.

As for the case with Japan, their troops in Manchuko were considerably inferior to the Russian troops stationed in the area. And even if Japan had beaten the Russian forces there, the Russians would have been able to pull further west and render the only major railroad to Siberia unusable for the Japanese. The Japanese would not have had the logistical capacity to advance through Asian Russia and pose a threat to Russia's European holdings.

[Robarya]

I think you've overlooked the fact that besides Lend-Lease the US was not involved until 1943, when Germany was already on the run in Russia following Stalingrad. I'm pretty sure the Brits had solid dominance of the Med as well, because Rommel had supply problems before US forces arrived in Algeria, even before El Alamain, while Montgomery was well supplied from India. I'm also fairly sure that the UK would have held off the blitz without US supplies and manpower.

True, except for Lend & Lease. The U.S. supplied both Britain and Russia before Germany's declaration of war in December 1941.

[Bavin]

I think you've overlooked the fact that besides Lend-Lease the US was not involved until 1943, when Germany was already on the run in Russia following Stalingrad.

Youre overlooking the fact that the US entered the war in 1941,

Son of a Brazilian real-estate agent!

[East Catalina]

Maybe-if the US hadn't been in the war and Einstein hadn't asked for the A-Bomb,the Germs would have made it-or ten-and made craters out of DC and London,as well as the Allies' other cities.The Soviets might have caused a Tet Offensive-ish situation, so,then the Euro war would've died.And then,the Brits probably would've run out of men as well.The Japs would've made an empire from Siberia into Alaska and then into India,but then they would've failed to hold AK because the US would've kicked them out.They'd probably drain the Americans of troops by the 50s.And then Japan would've been messed up,too,so the war'd effectively end in the East,too.



United States of East Catalina-
East Catalina on NSwiki.net
I wouldn't be here'cause I live near Washington.

[The imperian empire]

And there was me thinking the RAF carried out most of the bombing runs on Germany...

In terms of tonnage, American and British forces dropped almost an identical amount.

... although in terms of tonnage actually hitting the intended targets -- when those weren't just whole cities, anyway -- I suspect that the British (& foreign units that were effectively flying as part of the RAF, such as the Canadians or the Free Poles...) might have been a bit further ahead.

Considering the fact that the US did daytime bombing and had the Norden bombsight whilst the RAF did night bombing and lacked the Norden bombsight I highly doubt it...

The RAF had Oboe, a system more reliable than the Norden.

Basically Oboe was 2 stations in England, which sent out a pair of code signals, pointed over a very narrow area aimed at the target. One signal called cat and one called mouse. The Mosquito bombers in the pathfinder squadrons picked up these signals. If you could pick up 1, you were off course, for examples sake, too far south, if you could pick up the other, you were too far north. If you could pick up both, you were on target. By using these signals the pathfinders, and the staff back in the UK, could work out the positioning and could also use the signals to send messages. The Pathfinders then drop flares and incendiaries accurately on target, and the rest of the formation, (lead aircraft also equipped with the system I believe) dropping on the same target. Very effective at night.

There were problems with it, namely range and the way the earth curves, but the sending stations moved forward as the allies advanced. The error margin was very small.

[East Catalina]

Maybe-if the US hadn't been in the war and Einstein hadn't asked for the A-Bomb,the Germs would have made it-or ten-and made craters out of DC and London,as well as the Allies' other cities.The Soviets might have caused a Tet Offensive-ish situation, so,then the Euro war would've died.And then,the Brits probably would've run out of men as well.The Japs would've made an empire from Siberia into Alaska and then into India,but then they would've failed to hold AK because the US would've kicked them out.They'd probably drain the Americans of troops by the 50s.And then Japan would've been messed up,too,so the war'd effectively end in the East,too.



United States of East Catalina-
East Catalina on NSwiki.net
I wouldn't be here'cause I live near Washington.

Yes they would have lost because it was specifically the US's manpower, combined with the USSR that ultimately won World War Two. Without the US Japan would have had no enemy in the Pacific, they would've taken the entire pacific from the European powers, taken China, India and so forth. They would've opened a second front in Siberia as well. It was because of the US that Japan could not concentrate all of its effort towards expansion, but defending itself. The US also played an extremely vital role in supplying Britain during the Blitz and producing war goods throughout the war for the allies. Without the US Britain would have succumbed to the German Blitz, they would not have in turn been able to supply their African Corps and there would've never been any invasion of Sicily or D-Day. It was American manpower, and industrial might that ultimately saved the allies. Russian could not have been able to supply Britain with goods because, quite frankly Germany had cut it off from the North Sea's. Russia would've been annihilated by Operation Barborossa, as well as the Afrika Corps who would've broken through the poorly supplied and equipped troops of General Montogomery and swung up into the caucasus. Germany would have no two fronts to fight, Operation Sealion would've been carried out, Japan would've taken the whole Pacific and moved to destroy Russia from the East and Germany would've captured the Middle East, the allies would not stand a chance.

America certainly played a key role in the war, but Germany and Britain were at a stalemate. Germany lacked the proper navy to invade the British Isles, while the British lacked a strong enough army to invade Festung Europa. The British had plenty of resources on their own, and would have survived the war with or without American military interference, unless Germany had successfully defeated Russia and afterwards built a large navy to match the Royal Navy.

As for the case with Japan, their troops in Manchuko were considerably inferior to the Russian troops stationed in the area. And even if Japan had beaten the Russian forces there, the Russians would have been able to pull further west and render the only major railroad to Siberia unusable for the Japanese. The Japanese would not have had the logistical capacity to advance through Asian Russia and pose a threat to Russia's European holdings.

All of this stuff is correct.

[Robarya]

If we had not declaired war on them and remained neurtal by May of 1942 Japanese forces probably would be in California. We would be fighting them on our own soil.

Japan didn't have the manpower to attack the States. The Americans would have held them off easy. And not to mention there is no way the amount of ships needed for an invasion would be allowed anywhere near America without provoking them.

Japan did have plenty of manpower, but they lacked the resources to field all of them. And yep, they were basically doomed from the start. The U.S. was producing ~8 ships for every Japanese one throughout the war, and then one should also consider that when the Japanese and Americans faced, the Americans performed far better. So even if the Japanese would have won at some battle like Midway, it would hardly have made a difference.

And, correction. France was defeated. That's why we had to liberate them, remember?

They were certainly not a threat, that's for sure. Some French forces remained in the colonies, and fought minor skirmishes with Vichy troops, but their effect on the Allied victory were negligible at best.

Japan and Germany (And Italy) were all Allies since the beginning of the war. Say the Germans defeated the Soviets and then took over Britain; America would not have stood by and watched it happen. If Germany did ever make it to the States, the Americans would be too strong for them. And I'm not sure Japan could have ever fully defeated China as well, so the majority of their forces would be tied up. Now, if Germany had gotten the bomb and then invaded, nothing would really stop in their way.

There's a theory that Japan simply refrained from conquering China, even though they could have done so, since they would not have been able to occupy China, and they would have had to divert too much manpower from the Pacific for it to be worth it.

[East Catalina]

Putting all of these guys in Star Wars,who'd win-the Allies+America,Axis+America,Allies-America,or Axis-America?
+=With
-=Without

[East Catalina]

Lastly,it all depends.