Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA?

Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

SS Hauptsturmfuhrer -> Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/21/2009 8:17:01 AM)
Continuing the recent wave of age old what ifs about WW2. I think WW1 was easily winnable by England, Canada and France without the USA, but for WW2 it's a harder call. This question is a bit muddled by the way the US cheated during it's neutral time by shipping grotesque amounts of war goods to the UK and Russia. So my question is could the allies have won with the USA and Japan not going to war but the USA continues it's underhanded support while staying 'neutral'. In Africa, the Germans would not have had a two front war situation and there would have been no landing in Italy. Therefore Italy would have stayed in the war longer despite the treacherous elements of the Italian population causing problems for Mussolini. And Normandy would only have been invaded much later by a smaller force risking a loss. Delaying this would give more chance for Hitler to be knocked off by his drug problems or angry generals so the German army would have become a hundred times more effective in battle. It would have helped on the Eastern front a little because Japan would have focussed more on prosecuting China without the Pacific war as a distraction so Russia would have kept a larger deterrant force in Eastern Siberia.

Terminus -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/21/2009 8:27:48 AM)
Oh, goody... Another one of these threads that will blow up... Smart move...[8\|]

sprior -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/21/2009 8:59:53 AM)
And so diplomatically worded too.

EUBanana -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/21/2009 10:30:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SS Hauptsturmfuhrer Continuing the recent wave of age old what ifs about WW2. I think WW1 was easily winnable by England, Canada and France without the USA, but for WW2 it's a harder call. This question is a bit muddled by the way the US cheated during it's neutral time by shipping grotesque amounts of war goods to the UK and Russia. So my question is could the allies have won with the USA and Japan not going to war but the USA continues it's underhanded support while staying 'neutral'. No, I don't think so. Do you think the Normandy campaign would have been a success if it had about half the number of Allied troops that it enjoyed in reality?

SS Hauptsturmfuhrer -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/21/2009 10:42:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana No, I don't think so. Do you think the Normandy campaign would have been a success if it had about half the number of Allied troops that it enjoyed in reality? That's what my original post is asking. I don't think so either cause the US invaded both in southern and northern France which was a lot of army to deal with. It looks like some of the resident grouches are moaning as usual but moaners will be moaners. I think hanging out on a dull forum 8 hours a day is making people bored and miserable.

sprior -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/21/2009 11:02:31 AM)
Your argument is flawed from the get go. 1. The German generals only got angry when it was obvious that Hitler was losing the war for them, until that moment they were happy little nazis. 2. Russia was quite capable of grinding Germany to dust. With no or a very small invasion of Normandy the whole of Germany and maybe the Low Countries too (Italy and the Balkans?) would all have ended up under Russian hegemony. 3. Japan had no intention of attacking Russia, they'd already had their nose bloodied once.

stuman -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/21/2009 11:57:33 AM)
It depends.

Ironclad -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/21/2009 12:36:10 PM)
post deleted

Lützow -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/21/2009 1:16:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ironclad Hitler's decision to declare war on the USA was a critical error. Should take into account that the US were already involved for quite some time by supporting UK and Sovjet Union. So I'd consider this DOW rather as symbolic act. As for the question, I think with hindsight it's hard to tell if the Sovjets had survived first year without American land lease.

Peter Fisla -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/21/2009 1:25:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SS Hauptsturmfuhrer Continuing the recent wave of age old what ifs about WW2. I think WW1 was easily winnable by England, Canada and France without the USA, but for WW2 it's a harder call. This question is a bit muddled by the way the US cheated during it's neutral time by shipping grotesque amounts of war goods to the UK and Russia. So my question is could the allies have won with the USA and Japan not going to war but the USA continues it's underhanded support while staying 'neutral'. In Africa, the Germans would not have had a two front war situation and there would have been no landing in Italy. Therefore Italy would have stayed in the war longer despite the treacherous elements of the Italian population causing problems for Mussolini. And Normandy would only have been invaded much later by a smaller force risking a loss. Delaying this would give more chance for Hitler to be knocked off by his drug problems or angry generals so the German army would have become a hundred times more effective in battle. It would have helped on the Eastern front a little because Japan would have focussed more on prosecuting China without the Pacific war as a distraction so Russia would have kept a larger deterrant force in Eastern Siberia. Well the war in Europe was really won by Russia and not Western Allies, even though western allies did help of course but not in major way. War in Europe was all about Eastern Front.

sol_invictus -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/21/2009 2:41:57 PM)
The possibility of the Allies winning WWII with only American material and financial assistance certainly existed, but it would surely have been much more difficult. The way that the war progressed would have been altered to such a degree that many different outcomes could have resulted. It still would have been difficult for Germany to have defeated Russia after '42 in any event.

Terminus -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/21/2009 3:26:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla quote: ORIGINAL: SS Hauptsturmfuhrer Continuing the recent wave of age old what ifs about WW2. I think WW1 was easily winnable by England, Canada and France without the USA, but for WW2 it's a harder call. This question is a bit muddled by the way the US cheated during it's neutral time by shipping grotesque amounts of war goods to the UK and Russia. So my question is could the allies have won with the USA and Japan not going to war but the USA continues it's underhanded support while staying 'neutral'. In Africa, the Germans would not have had a two front war situation and there would have been no landing in Italy. Therefore Italy would have stayed in the war longer despite the treacherous elements of the Italian population causing problems for Mussolini. And Normandy would only have been invaded much later by a smaller force risking a loss. Delaying this would give more chance for Hitler to be knocked off by his drug problems or angry generals so the German army would have become a hundred times more effective in battle. It would have helped on the Eastern front a little because Japan would have focussed more on prosecuting China without the Pacific war as a distraction so Russia would have kept a larger deterrant force in Eastern Siberia. Well the war in Europe was really won by Russia and not Western Allies, even though western allies did help of course but not in major way. War in Europe was all about Eastern Front. Oh goody, what an educated and nuanced view...[8\|]

SeaMonkey -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/21/2009 4:10:11 PM)
The real question is, "do you think that wars are won and lost primarily on logistics"? If you answer "yes", then your opinion is evident, and if "no", well your position is likewise obvious.

Kuokkanen -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/21/2009 4:59:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey The real question is, "do you think that wars are won and lost primarily on logistics"? If you answer "yes", then your opinion is evident, and if "no", well your position is likewise obvious. My answer: yes AND no. Working logistics are needed to keep fighting forces operational. But when fighting forces disrupt logistics of enemy, then victory may not be primarily on logistics. See Finland & Winter War: Finnish Defense Force kept its logistics working most of the time for most of the troops, but elements of Red Army were surrounded and isolated from logistical chains, which led to defeat of significantly greater force.

Ron -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/21/2009 5:27:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen My answer: yes AND no. Working logistics are needed to keep fighting forces operational. But when fighting forces disrupt logistics of enemy, then victory may not be primarily on logistics. See Finland & Winter War: Finnish Defense Force kept its logistics working most of the time for most of the troops, but elements of Red Army were surrounded and isolated from logistical chains, which led to defeat of significantly greater force. I believe you just answered a definitive YES to SeaMonkey's question. :)

Ike99 -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/21/2009 5:29:56 PM)
quote: Terminus-Oh, goody... Another one of these threads that will blow up... Smart move... Oh goody, what an educated and nuanced view... I wish Erik would do everyone a favor and make you STFU for two weeks. quote: Terminus-No, they were not a menace in any way, shape or form. I'm taking this as a joke post. castor troy-once again you just prove what kind of a poor individual you are. Moonraker has only 2% the number of posts as you accumulated with your spam while he´s been a forum member for a year longer than you. He comes up with a thread and of course you have to be the first one to answer. While you are absolutely correct with the first sentence of your post, the second one is just an insult once again. Isn´t it possible that you could just stop pissing off people? Must be hard eh if you don´t have another life than sitting in front of your PC without having learnt how to socially behave? There is no reason telling another forum member that his post would be a joke. Please, just stop behaving like if you wouldn´t be smart enough. Maybe it´s time for the Matrix pet troll to take a break Erik.

06 Maestro -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/21/2009 6:43:27 PM)
Without the huge amount of material supplied by the USA, the Allies would have had a very slim chance of winning. They could have avoided defeat for some years, until the nuclear bomb. It was estimated that Germany would have had one by 1947. We know Russia was far behind that. Just how long it would have taken the UK to create one on its own, I do not know, but am fairly certain that Germany could have achieved the techs sooner. Boom-game over. It is not possible that a conventional victory over Germany could have been attained in 1945 w/o the active participation (which includes the Lend Lease material to the USSR,) of the USA.

Lützow -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/21/2009 7:26:20 PM)
I'm currently reading "Eagle against the Sun" and according to this book the US were kinda neglecting their armed forces during interwar period and not even prepared in late 30'sh. I wonder how it turned out if Hitler launched his European tourney 2 years before.

Capt. Harlock -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/21/2009 8:24:23 PM)
quote: Well the war in Europe was really won by Russia and not Western Allies, even though western allies did help of course but not in major way. War in Europe was all about Eastern Front. That was the major part, although the statistic that nine out of ten Wermacht soldiers who were KIA died on the Eastern Front is a bit misleading. (A higher percentage of German soldiers surrendered to the Western allies, since they knew that they were much less likely to be killed by english-speaking troops.) But the American entry into the war gave the Soviets two critical gifts. First, the invasion and surrender of Italy changed the Italians from an asset to a liability, stripping the Eastern front of many troops. (Stalin's demand for a "second front" was actually granted in 1943, but he conveniently ignored that.) Second and even more important, the American daylight bombing campaign broke the back of the Luftwaffe, admittedly after a shaky start. One last point: the question posed was if the Allies could have won WW2, meaning both Germany and Japan. IMHO, the Allies could not have beaten Japan without American naval power. The RN did not have sufficient numbers of carriers or good enough CV aircraft to gain control of the Pacific.

morvwilson -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/21/2009 11:33:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lützow I'm currently reading "Eagle against the Sun" and according to this book the US were kinda neglecting their armed forces during interwar period and not even prepared in late 30'sh. I wonder how it turned out if Hitler launched his European tourney 2 years before. LOL, I think you won the understatement of the year award![:D] The US army ranked something like number 17 in the world I think (slightly above the Rumainian army). No tanks worthy of the name and very few combat aircraft ready to fight. As to WW2? I believe in the old saying that professionals study logistics while the amateurs study tactics. It is definitely more fun I think to study tactics, but beans and bullets carries the day. In the example of the first Russo/Fin war, the Fins did stand off a numerically superior red army, but only for so long. The Fins lacked the numbers to keep pace with Russia in men and material. (this defeat is what pushed the Fins to the German side later on) Also, added into this, the Russians did put out feelers via their consulate in Bulgaria to Germany for terms to end the war in late 1941. It was the massive assistance coming from England and the US that kept the Soviets in the war. So, without US aide, I think England would have held(two reasons for this) out but Russia would have made a separate peace with Germany just as they did in the First World War. The two reasons for England holding out was first, the German army would have to cross the English Chanel. No easy task there. Second, Hitler never wanted to go to war with England or France for idealistic reasons. He wanted to move German influence to the East.

E -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/22/2009 12:02:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock First, the invasion and surrender of Italy changed the Italians from an asset to a liability, Italy was an asset?

Peter Fisla -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/22/2009 12:15:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock quote: Well the war in Europe was really won by Russia and not Western Allies, even though western allies did help of course but not in major way. War in Europe was all about Eastern Front. That was the major part, although the statistic that nine out of ten Wermacht soldiers who were KIA died on the Eastern Front is a bit misleading. (A higher percentage of German soldiers surrendered to the Western allies, since they knew that they were much less likely to be killed by english-speaking troops.) But the American entry into the war gave the Soviets two critical gifts. Hmmm, I seriously doubt this statement. According to my sources: Slaughterhouse - the handbook on the Eastern Front, written in 2004 and one of the most respected researchers on the subject of Eastern Front being David Glantz: http://www.amazon.com/Slaughterhouse-Handbook-Eastern-David-Glantz/dp/097176509X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248216762&sr=8-1 Page 11, Out of 13,480,000 total loses for Germany in WW2 10,758,000 were on the Eastern Front so yeah that's 80% loses on Eastern Front - which qualifies as major by my opinion. I seriously doubt that more than 10 million German soldiers surrendered to Western Allies. Page 10, Soviet Union has about 35,000 000 (yes 35 million) registered military casualties and on top of that it is estimated about 26 million civilian casualties alone (this number could be higher but there are no actual registered records of civilian casualties). So in total for the Soviet Union that's about 55+ million casualties. So you can take all the western allies casualties from Europe, Africa and including Pacific and it still wouldn't stack up against Soviet loses. So that's what I mean by Soviet Union winning the war in Europe. Page 12, Axis Allies (Hungary/Italy/Rumania/Finland) have about 12 million registered loses on Eastern Front.. quote: One last point: the question posed was if the Allies could have won WW2, meaning both Germany and Japan. IMHO, the Allies could not have beaten Japan without American naval power. The RN did not have sufficient numbers of carriers or good enough CV aircraft to gain control of the Pacific. Yes you are right, I was doing two things at the same time so I answered the wrong thread. Though at first I didn't want to go further as I couldn't figure out how to delete my response but I'm coming back as I want to support my statement with facts. In the end I apologize for being off topic...didn't mean to hijack the thread... Peter

madgamer2 -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/22/2009 12:22:14 AM)
Perhaps you should take up the age old occupation of writing the 21st. century version of the dime store novel of adventures during WW2 LOL Where do you come up with these ideas. With just a small amount od writing ability and your imagination ......oh.....I AM sorry your serious....right? Well I will be going now sorry to have bothered you Madgamer

madgamer2 -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/22/2009 12:27:04 AM)
its reading posts from folks like you that make reading (I detest the phrase "Hanging Out") such as yourself. What would you possible know about why people like it hear unless you base your thoughts on your OWN read that your O-W-N beliefs. In any case carry on I do love the logical mind posters LOL Madgamer

Cmdrcain -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/22/2009 5:06:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sprior Your argument is flawed from the get go. 2. Russia was quite capable of grinding Germany to dust. With no or a very small invasion of Normandy the whole of Germany and maybe the Low Countries too (Italy and the Balkans?) would all have ended up under Russian hegemony. Presumes that USA would have continued to supply Communists.... there would been a point of fears of what you say... I could see USA supplying England but cutting supplies to USSR at a point.

Cmdrcain -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/22/2009 5:21:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lützow Should take into account that the US were already involved for quite some time by supporting UK and Sovjet Union. So I'd consider this DOW rather as symbolic act. As for the question, I think with hindsight it's hard to tell if the Sovjets had survived first year without American land lease. Sorry but there would been no german DOW if USA and Japan had not gone to war, even when that occured, the german DOW was stupid. As I have constant said... Hitler handed Roosvelt the Europe First by that DOW... once Germany had DOW... there was no real opposition to an europe first thing as it was important to bolster britain and move men to what was a shorter supply line Sure the West Coast feared japanese invasion... but USA had resources to counter it and Japans intent wasn;t Hawaii or west coast... so basically Hitler ensured his doom by that stupidity. WITHOUT Germany DOW, if US-Japan warred... the US Population...would have been opposed to USA declaring on germany... Japan was one attacked USA...voters demand would been actually in absence of German DOW that USA put its supplies and effort vs japan. A Japan ONLY would have occurred... given its Congress that declares wars they would not have necessary voted if Roosevelt asked for a DOW vs Germany.... When USA did it was just going through the ropes...cause Germany had DOW first. So if No German DOW If Japan attked...USA rage of public would have not stood for Roosevelt demanding USA declare on Germany... If no German DOW...no Japan War... USA would have just continued its supplying...with at a point communist fears if germany started loss in east curtailing supplies to USSR... So "symbolic" is rather wrong... Hitlers DOW was VERY Important... It flat out HANDED Roosvelt what he wanted...to fully aid and fight GERMANY.

Cmdrcain -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/22/2009 5:32:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla Well the war in Europe was really won by Russia and not Western Allies, even though western allies did help of course but not in major way. War in Europe was all about Eastern Front. Thats the biggest Myth that continues to be said. IF no Normandy.... Germany would not have had to keep as much forces in West europe... If No USA involvement... No Invasion in italy...No Third Front for Germany... there were THREE Fronts... once USA/allies were in Italy aimed at Germanys "belly" and then Normandy created the "second front" Germany was fighting 3 fronts.. Without those other fronts if it had been only The east front... USSR would have not had it easier...they were hard up and stalin was constant wanting another front to relieve pressure on him. Also Ussr would have not done as well if NO USA SUPPLIES... No Trucks, etc... they would have moved troops on foot or in donkey-carts... Those supplies were an immerse aid which without, USSr would NOT have been as effective! The Fact is if it had been only Germany vs USSR with Ussr getting no USa supplies and Germany NOT being BOMBED like it was by the USAAF... etc... Germany even if not able defeat USSr would have been capable of creating a stalemate. Sorry.... but while it can be said that the war in east was important... it chewed up germany.. The idea USSR itself alone was the one that won it and allies had no major part is Bogus.

Wirraway_Ace -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/22/2009 4:05:18 PM)
These questions are always head-scratchers to me. They seem to have their root in the perception that the Western Allies did not give the Russia enough credit for winning the war with Germany. While this may be true, there is a rationale for it that goes beyond nationalistic pride. Stalin’s Russia was little better than Hitler’s Germany—if any. Britain and the U.S. would not have let Western Europe fall to Stalin any more than allowing it to remain in Hitler’s hands. Regardless of whether Russia could beat Germany with only Britain’s help, the U.S. would have been forced to become involved on essentially the same scale it did. Russian pride in its war effort should be consigned to the same dustbin of history as that of the Wehrmarcht and Luftwaffe—there is no honor in serving a horrible cause well. It was a happy occurrence for the rest of the world that they went after each other’s throats. It was a tragedy that so many died fighting for the choice to be ruled by Hitler or Stalin… As if have said in other similar threads, history has judged these two regimes. Don’t try and rewrite it, they are not worth it.

EUBanana -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/22/2009 4:16:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro Without the huge amount of material supplied by the USA, the Allies would have had a very slim chance of winning. They could have avoided defeat for some years, until the nuclear bomb. It was estimated that Germany would have had one by 1947. We know Russia was far behind that. Just how long it would have taken the UK to create one on its own, I do not know, but am fairly certain that Germany could have achieved the techs sooner. Boom-game over. I don't think so. Albert Speer totally discounted the idea of a German bomb quite early on. This is why he authorised the use of uranium to be used in warheads rather than stockpiled to make atom bombs. Heisenberg was treated quite diffidently by the Nazis. Britain was actually the most advanced nuclear power when the war opened scientifically - all that data was handed over to the US. I doubt British industry would be in a fit state to capitalise on the knowledge though.

Nikademus -> RE: Could the allies have won WW2 without the USA? (7/22/2009 4:50:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SS Hauptsturmfuhrer So my question is could the allies have won with the USA and Japan not going to war but the USA continues it's underhanded support while staying 'neutral'. Yes. I believe so.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.984375