Without America Would the Allies have lost WWII?

[The Balanced Breakfast]

Does this scenario have the U.S. providing the same amount of arms, ammunition, food and equipment through Lend-Lease, or is the U.S. completely on the sidelines?

[The Imperial Navy]

I love all these definitive answers from NSG's numerous alternate-universe experts.

Is the question whether the Allies would have lost without US military involvement? In that case, my opinion is probably not. Direct military conflict between US and German troops did not occur until the tide had turned against Germany in Russia. They had arguably already lost the war before they ever engaged American soldiers. The outcome would have been very different, because it's questionable whether Britain had the logistics and manpower to operate the Normandy invasion alone, but Germany was very likely going to lose the war before the US ever got heavily involved.

Now, is the question whether the Allies would have lost without any US participation at all? If that is the case, then my opinion switches to most likely. While American military involvement may not have been necessary for defeating Germany, US economic support to both Britain and Russia was essential to their survival in the early months and years of the war when Germany held the distinct upper hand. Without the Lend-Lease program, it's debatable whether Britain could have survived German blockades or the Battle of Britain. And it's very possible that, without US hardware, the Soviet Union would not have been able to slow German advances enough to ensure that Germany was unable to capture their key objectives, especially the Baku oil fields. The US supplied the USSR with over 2,000 trains (their primary means of supply and troop movement) and over 18,000 aircraft. It's possible that without this aid, Soviet resistance would have been diminished enough that Germany could have achieved victory on the Eastern Front.

That seems a very constructive argument. My hat is off to you.

[Firstaria]

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.

[Yootopia]

Think about it though. Imagine if Japan were to attack Russia instead of USA. Russia would have been fighting 2 fronts, giving the Axis the advantage.

Not really. The Russians still had a massive manufacturing base a Long Arse Way from the Japanese in the Urals.

Also, the americans fought the italians in Northern africa

Eventually.

I believe that if the following events happened, the axis would have won:

America was not attacked

Dunno about this. They were selling arms to both sides from the start and things were going increasingly the way of Britain and Russia from 1941 onwards.

Japan attacked Eastern Russia

I dunno, the Japanese attacked from Manchuria in 1939, before the Germans attacked Russia, and they got absowtfpwned in the face.

Germany started out with more U-boats to isolate Britain

Meh. We would've persisted eventually.

Pearl harbor was actually a blessing in disguise to the allies.

[/quote]
Pretty much.

[Psychotic Mongooses]

Does this scenario have the U.S. providing the same amount of arms, ammunition, food and equipment through Lend-Lease, or is the U.S. completely on the sidelines?

Given the capitalist nature of the US, portraying a scenario where they have no economic input at all seems..... silly.

[Cybach]

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.

However. Take into account many inventions of the Germans in '44, and late in the war. Such as the STG-44, the KönigTiger, just to name a few. There are enough accounts of a single Tiger or KönigTiger taking down upwards of 20 T-34s. Without the harsh US bombing of infrastructure and factories, the RAF bombings therefore while hurtful not being devastating.

I would say it would get to a pretty ugly place. The war possibly going into the 50s. Not to mention Germany being closer to the atomic weapon, whereas the USSR did not even have an atomic program. It took 4 years for the USSR to defeat Germany, when Germany was in a two-front war. Without Germany ever having to fear an Allied landing, and therefore have full unit disposition, i.e the other 30%. I would say the USSR winning wouldn't be that much of a given.

[Hayteria]

So many people seem so sure of themselves as to what would have happened in a different past, that I feel obliged to repeat myself from earlier in the thread...

... for what it's worth, the most relevant point of all is that we can't go back in time and take the US out of the picture, so we'll never really know for sure; we can only speculate. This is a problem that both the "we saved your ass" crowd and the "we'd have won without you" have in common; they are blindly asserting unprovable conclusions...

[Augmark]

Britain could not have directly assaulted Europe on its own. It could have sent fighters, bombers, and special forces, but nothing on the scale of D-Day.

The Germans were in a quagmire with the USSR, but without constant American Bombers (and with a better air defense against British bombers) Industry and labor could have been maximized, giving the Germans a huge industrial capability, never seen in what actually happened.

With the Germans fighting the Soviets in eastern Europe, slowly gaining reinforcements from western Europe as they had no one to fight, they could have beaten back the soviet counter offensive. In the Pacific, with no one to fight, the Japanese could have conquered the south Pacific, gaining a huge industrial capability and natural resources and could have attacked the USSR from the east.

Lets not forget V weapons, which would have been extensively used, to attack British cities and military targets. Eventually, the British would have opted for peace as civillian casualties rose, and Germany would have accepted(they never actually wanted to conquer Britain). The Germans would have continued into the Soviet Union, with neither side calling for peace(war of attrition), and eventually it would turn into guerrilla warfare against the Germans, which would last for a really long time.

The Allies could not have "won" without the industrial, economic, and military support of the United States, but it would not have been a total defeat either.

no one will ever know for sure...

[Yootopia]

However. Take into account many inventions of the Germans in '44, and late in the war. Such as the STG-44, the KönigTiger, just to name a few. There are enough accounts of a single Tiger or KönigTiger taking down upwards of 20 T-34s.

Yeah, but the kind of people who take such accounts uncritically are cretins. Same goes for Rudel's frankly Norrisesque autobiography.

It took 4 years for the USSR to defeat Germany, when Germany was in a two-front war

So?

Without Germany ever having to fear an Allied landing, and therefore have full unit disposition, i.e the other 30%. I would say the USSR winning wouldn't be that much of a given.

Can't say I agree, the Russians were outproducing them, had a larger population base, and some German troops were always going to be tied down in various occupational duties.

[The Master M]

Think about it though. Imagine if Japan were to attack Russia instead of USA. Russia would have been fighting 2 fronts, giving the Axis the advantage. Also, the americans fought the italians in Northern africa, so Northern africa would have been under axis control. I believe that if the following events happened, the axis would have won:

America was not attacked
Japan attacked Eastern Russia
Germany started out with more U-boats to isolate Britain


Pearl harbor was actually a blessing in disguise to the allies.

But British forces were winning in North Africa, just look at El Alemain. Also, the Nazis would never have taken Britain.

[Yootopia]

Lets not forget V weapons, which would have been extensively used, to attack British cities and military targets. Eventually, the British would have opted for peace as civillian casualties rose, and Germany would have accepted(they never actually wanted to conquer Britain).

... wtf are you talking about -_-

The V-weapons were something like 10% of the casualties of the Blitz. This is not that much, especially when V-weapons were killing civilians at about the rate of two a rocket. That's a lot of effort for not much tangible gain.

[The Master M]

Britain could not have directly assaulted Europe on its own. It could have sent fighters, bombers, and special forces, but nothing on the scale of D-Day.

The Germans were in a quagmire with the USSR, but without constant American Bombers (and with a better air defense against British bombers) Industry and labor could have been maximized, giving the Germans a huge industrial capability, never seen in what actually happened.

With the Germans fighting the Soviets in eastern Europe, slowly gaining reinforcements from western Europe as they had no one to fight, they could have beaten back the soviet counter offensive. In the Pacific, with no one to fight, the Japanese could have conquered the south Pacific, gaining a huge industrial capability and natural resources and could have attacked the USSR from the east.

Lets not forget V weapons, which would have been extensively used, to attack British cities and military targets. Eventually, the British would have opted for peace as civillian casualties rose, and Germany would have accepted(they never actually wanted to conquer Britain). The Germans would have continued into the Soviet Union, with neither side calling for peace(war of attrition), and eventually it would turn into guerrilla warfare against the Germans, which would last for a really long time.

The Allies could not have "won" without the industrial, economic, and military support of the United States, but it would not have been a total defeat either.

no one will ever know for sure...

Surely, as you said, with more troops from the west moving to fight in the east, Britain and the commonwealth could have attacked the diminished German presence in france at that time? Then the Germans would be fighting on at least two fronts, and we might still have won.

Also, if Germany never wanted to conquer Britain then why did Hitler sanction operation sealion, and order Goering to take out the RAF in preparation for the invasion? No RAF= Luftwaffe free to sink British naval assets= free passage for invasion fleet.

[KaIashnikov]

Wait the Germans lost to the Soviets?

I recall 2,000,000 German losses to 10,000,000 Soviets Losses?

[Sdaeriji]

Wait the Germans lost to the Soviets?

I recall 2,000,000 German losses to 10,000,000 Soviets Losses?

Do you also recall the Soviets occupying Berlin?

[Buffett and Colbert]

Wait the Germans lost to the Soviets?

I recall 2,000,000 German losses to 10,000,000 Soviets Losses?

I recall the battle of Stalingrad and the invasion of Berlin.

[Augmark]

Lets not forget V weapons, which would have been extensively used, to attack British cities and military targets. Eventually, the British would have opted for peace as civillian casualties rose, and Germany would have accepted(they never actually wanted to conquer Britain).

... wtf are you talking about -_-

The V-weapons were something like 10% of the casualties of the Blitz. This is not that much, especially when V-weapons were killing civilians at about the rate of two a rocket. That's a lot of effort for not much tangible gain.

take into account that the Germans would be able to refine the weapons to be more accurate and deadly, without the constant threat of Allied Air supremacy. Though nothing impressive initially, they could open up a door of horrors. Lob over a V-rocket filled with gas=a lot of dead people. No, the Germans didn't use gas in combat in WW2, but because this is a what if thread...

[Yootopia]

Wait the Germans lost to the Soviets?

I recall 2,000,000 German losses to 10,000,000 Soviets Losses?

[Yootopia]

take into account that the Germans would be able to refine the weapons to be more accurate and deadly, without the constant threat of Allied Air supremacy.

The Russians had air supremacy by 1943. They just didn't bomb all that much shit because they didn't need to. Nothing stopping them hypothetically making more bombers...

Though nothing impressive initially, they could open up a door of horrors. Lob over a V-rocket filled with gas=a lot of dead people. No, the Germans didn't use gas in combat in WW2, but because this is a what if thread...

... yeah the Germans didn't use that kind of thing because they knew that the British and Russians would rub anthrax in their face.

[United Russian State]

Wait the Germans lost to the Soviets?

I recall 2,000,000 German losses to 10,000,000 Soviets Losses?

Remeber when Soviet flags put up in Berlin in 1945?

[Augmark]

Britain could not have directly assaulted Europe on its own. It could have sent fighters, bombers, and special forces, but nothing on the scale of D-Day.

The Germans were in a quagmire with the USSR, but without constant American Bombers (and with a better air defense against British bombers) Industry and labor could have been maximized, giving the Germans a huge industrial capability, never seen in what actually happened.

With the Germans fighting the Soviets in eastern Europe, slowly gaining reinforcements from western Europe as they had no one to fight, they could have beaten back the soviet counter offensive. In the Pacific, with no one to fight, the Japanese could have conquered the south Pacific, gaining a huge industrial capability and natural resources and could have attacked the USSR from the east.

Lets not forget V weapons, which would have been extensively used, to attack British cities and military targets. Eventually, the British would have opted for peace as civillian casualties rose, and Germany would have accepted(they never actually wanted to conquer Britain). The Germans would have continued into the Soviet Union, with neither side calling for peace(war of attrition), and eventually it would turn into guerrilla warfare against the Germans, which would last for a really long time.

The Allies could not have "won" without the industrial, economic, and military support of the United States, but it would not have been a total defeat either.

no one will ever know for sure...

Surely, as you said, with more troops from the west moving to fight in the east, Britain and the commonwealth could have attacked the diminished German presence in france at that time? Then the Germans would be fighting on at least two fronts, and we might still have won.

Also, if Germany never wanted to conquer Britain then why did Hitler sanction operation sealion, and order Goering to take out the RAF in preparation for the invasion? No RAF= Luftwaffe free to sink British naval assets= free passage for invasion fleet.

Hitler wanted Britain to come to peace with Germany. They refused. He realized they needed to take Britain out of the war. Britain wasn't considered "A natural Enemy" like the communist and Slavs.

[Rikese]

Because the Russians pwned the Eastern German Armies with ease.

I'm not a military fetishist or armchair general, but I don't know that you could classify what happened as 'with ease.'

I mean when the tide turned. Yes at first they were being driven back, but then the russian winter hit...

Not even then. Many accounts put the entirety of the remains of the east wehrmacht army as being on par with elite units. The German army came in proud, semi-tested, with heads high and it came out bloodied and hardened. Therefore it was no surprise at all that conscripted Russian teenagers were easily bested by the German veterans who did survive.

The only problem? Not enough Germans.

Wait the Germans lost to the Soviets?

I recall 2,000,000 German losses to 10,000,000 Soviets Losses?

You don't need a superior kill-ratio to win a war, though it often helps.

[The South Islands]

Wait the Germans lost to the Soviets?

I recall 2,000,000 German losses to 10,000,000 Soviets Losses?

/thread

The Soviet Union won World War II. All other effort is completely irrelevant.

[Yootopia]

Hitler wanted Britain to come to peace with Germany. They refused. He realized they needed to take Britain out of the war. Britain wasn't considered "A natural Enemy" like the communist and Slavs.

... sort of irrelevant since the German Airforce bombed our cities thus Dresden etc. was pretty much kosher.

[Heinleinites]

US involvement was completely irrelevant.

Yeah, that's so wrong it hurts. If nothing else, you may want to read up on Lend-Lease.

[KaIashnikov]

I do have slight recollection of these events occurring.