WWII without America?

[jonesthecurl]

The allies had already won the war before the Americans even showed up, Hitler was being pushed back and was meeting the Russians on the other side. The Canadian army was a big part of it. Why is it that we are never mentioned as a factor in WWII. True our present army is small and pathetic but during WWII we were quite a force. The Canadians breached quite a few northern beaches in France before the Americans made there first move. You americans ever wonder why it was so easy for you to walk in as the saviors. Because we cleared the way for you. Must be nice to get the credit for winning the war when all you really did was come in and clean up the stragglers. I expect this post is going to get a lot of flack, in which case I would suggest you nonbelievers go to the beaches of France and take a look at the monuments to the Canadian solders.

MM-Hmm. And not just Canadians get forgotten, but Aussies, New Zealanders, the Burmese, and more.

[jonesthecurl]

I haven't voted.
Like most counter-history, I find I need an earlier question answered.
WHY did the US not join in?

If I remember right, the US was emerging from an isolationist foreign policy and was attempting to stay out of the European squabbles.

No, I mean, "If America hadn't joined in eventually", which is the theme of this thread, "why didn't they join in at all?"
The reason for them not joining in would affect the answer to the question.

Let's say for instance that Pearl Harbor didn't happen: how would that have affected events?

[muy_thaiguy]

I haven't voted.
Like most counter-history, I find I need an earlier question answered.
WHY did the US not join in?

If I remember right, the US was emerging from an isolationist foreign policy and was attempting to stay out of the European squabbles.

No, I mean, "If America hadn't joined in eventually", which is the theme of this thread, "why didn't they join in at all?"
The reason for them not joining in would affect the answer to the question.

Let's say for instance that Pearl Harbor didn't happen: how would that have affected events?

Japan would have been able to concentrate almost solely on the Chinese, whom were at an uneasy (at the best of times) truce during a viscous civil war between the Communists and Nationalists. They were being thrashed (to say the least) with US intervention. So in other words, without having to worry about us coming up from behind them, the Japanese would have been free to focus all their might on the Chinese.

[btownmeggy]

We have a small number of involved countries that during the early and intermediate stages of WWII didn't have any major, imminent threats to their domestic, civilian populations: US, Australia, Brazil, Japan (there are others, of course, please excuse my cursory, historical-dilettante position.) When your soldiers don't face the reality of their babies being killed, I think you fight a war in very different ways.

I agree with many others here that it would have been practically impossible for the Germans to defeat the Soviets, but we must consider the fact that over 6 years, about 1/2 of the population of the Ukraine died. With consideration of the economic, sociological, and infrastructural tolls of war, we must be aware that without these "as yet untouched" nations, the war would have been interminably longer than it actually was. What would the world have been like with a 15 years war still occurring in 1954? A 20 years war in 1959??

I don't think anyone is prepared to say what could or could not have been, for any historical "what-if". I propose that the best approach to history is to attempt to understand the rationalizing, emotions, and impetuses of historical actors, and to be able to judge them within those frames (what use is history without contemporary condemnations or recommendations?)

So... what do you suppose my answer was to the poll?

[Minister Masket]

Let's say for instance that Pearl Harbor didn't happen: how would that have affected events?

Japan would have been able to concentrate almost solely on the Chinese, whom were at an uneasy (at the best of times) truce during a viscous civil war between the Communists and Nationalists. They were being thrashed (to say the least) with US intervention. So in other words, without having to worry about us coming up from behind them, the Japanese would have been free to focus all their might on the Chinese.

I was under the impression that the Japanese wanted to take America's navy out before the war started.
I think if Pearl Harbour hadn't happened, a similar attack the USA would've be done instead.

[Qwert]

the army with the greater ablity to replace losses will win always.[/quote

Good answer. How can someon belive that german will won war.Hes Allies Italians only beat Albania,and Ethiopia,even Montenegrins in one month free Montenegro agains Italians.Others German allies also whas poor in war strategy.

[Qwert]

German not have chance to win.Look hes Allies in Europe:
Italy-victorius against Albania,Ethiopia.
Hungary-Victorius against nobody.
Bulgaria-Victorius against nobody.
Slovak State-Victorius against nobody.
Croatia-victorius against nobody.
How can someon win with these allies.German must fight alone against Soviet and British,and dont have enough soldiers to fight in russian front who whas long over 4000 km.Dont forget hostile Countries for Axis forces.Yugoslavia hold 500000 axis soldiers.
Japanes in begining of war mostly fight agains poor equipment defenders,And chinese with Soviet will defeat japanese,deep in mainlands.

Like man say

the army with the greater ablity to replace losses will win always

[tzor]

Let's say for instance that Pearl Harbor didn't happen: how would that have affected events?

American isloation would have continued at the "public" level. Privately, the government wanted to be in the war, but it was a political hot potato and as a result all efforts towards the war were done descretely until pearl harbor happened. The event literally flipped the people who were against the war to being for the war. I knew people who literally left colleges and went down to a recuriting station to enlist as a direct result of the attack.

The notion of a non pearl harbor doesn't imply that Japan would just sit around all day and do nothing, so the question of their involvement has to be a key factor in any what if scanario.

[Juan_Bottom]

I voted that it was a what-if question with no point.

however......

I can't see the Axis Powers loseing WWII, without an American intervention. The Germans were losing in Africa, and in the Soviet Union. But! They were winning the naval blockade of Great Britan. It is hard to fight a war with no supplies. All the Germans would have to do is hold out for peace terms with Great Britan.

The Soviets, were poorly trained, and freely offered their sons for a patriotic slaughter. As JENOS said, the T-34 was their only trump card. Who's to say that the TIGER wouldn't have been its undoing? If Great Britan had fallen, I believe the Germans would have been able to rally again against the Soviets.
And let us not forget that Soviet factories were located almost exclusively in the West.

As far as Japan, they were beating the Chinese. Had they won(and not involved the U.S.), who's to say that they wouldn't have done a feint into the Soviet Union to allow the Germans to rally? It seems to me, that the Soviet Union was the key to a total axis victory. And though the Soviets were winning, the question is if it was sustainable.

And I don't believe the Russian Bear would have had the strength to invade Germany by her lonesome.

[tzor]

Not to mention that German technology, which ironically came too late into the war would now become the deciding factor in the war. German jets would have resulted in total supremacy in the air, they could outperform anything the Allied forces had at the time. Allowing the war to continue for several years would place a significant technological advantage for Germany.

[Snorri1234]

Assuming the crazy nut that Hitler was didn't go ahead with an invasion the moment Britian is busy defending Australia from a Japanese Invasion a few years or so down the road.

Hitler being a crazy nut was the reason they lost.

[Jenos Ridan]

I voted that it was a what-if question with no point.

however......

I can't see the Axis Powers loseing WWII, without an American intervention. The Germans were losing in Africa, and in the Soviet Union. But! They were winning the naval blockade of Great Britan. It is hard to fight a war with no supplies. All the Germans would have to do is hold out for peace terms with Great Britan.

The Soviets, were poorly trained, and freely offered their sons for a patriotic slaughter. As JENOS said, the T-34 was their only trump card. Who's to say that the TIGER wouldn't have been its undoing? If Great Britan had fallen, I believe the Germans would have been able to rally again against the Soviets.
And let us not forget that Soviet factories were located almost exclusively in the West.

As far as Japan, they were beating the Chinese. Had they won(and not involved the U.S.), who's to say that they wouldn't have done a feint into the Soviet Union to allow the Germans to rally? It seems to me, that the Soviet Union was the key to a total axis victory. And though the Soviets were winning, the question is if it was sustainable.

And I don't believe the Russian Bear would have had the strength to invade Germany by her lonesome.

Also, the German Panzer divisions were the first truely combined arms units in existance at the time; nobody else even had a combined arms doctrine to begin with (save one General George Patton, who read some of Rommel's theoretical work on tank warfare). The Tiger tanks were assisted by field engineers, infantry trainned and equiped for modern mechanized warfare, close-air support aircraft, everything that we see being used in the modern Blitzkrieg-type doctrine called AirLand Battle 2000 (actually, the military is going into Full-Spectrum Supremacy, AirLand Battle was divised to defend Europe from a Soviet push down the Fulda Gap in West Germany in the mid '80s. It was used against the Iraqi Army in '91 though, the first time the public got to see what the US military can do since the Vietnam War). The T-34 had no radio, like most other tanks of it's era. This means the German Army had a superior C3 (command, control, communication) architecture, resulting in superb coordination of the myriad forces of varying type. A vital necessity for the Blitzkrieg tactics first idealized in the post WW1 period were the Weimar Republic needed a way to maximize the effectiveness of it's small army imposed by the Treaty of Versailles (in effect, the Versailles Treaty gave birth to the Wehrmacht).

Had the US stayed out, even with Hitler (crazy though he was, stupid was something he was not) remaining in command(not that it would have made one wit of differance after 1941, someone else just as capable would have taken over), most of Europe from the Urals to the Faroe Islands would be speaking German right now (notable exceptions might be Finland, Italy, "Vichy" France, Sweden, other minor Axis powers in Europe and Spain), due to the advances the German engineers were always churning out.

[Bavarian Raven]

it's basically like this, without US, eastern front grinds into a bloody stalemate and a cold war or sorts ensues.... now if germany had accepted russia's offer of conditional surender in late 41, things might have been different

[Qwert]

Also, the German Panzer divisions were the first truely combined arms units in existance at the time; nobody else even had a combined arms doctrine to begin with (save one General George Patton, who read some of Rommel's theoretical work on tank warfare). The Tiger tanks were assisted by field engineers, infantry trainned and equiped for modern mechanized warfare, close-air support aircraft, everything that we see being used in the modern Blitzkrieg-type doctrine called AirLand Battle 2000 (actually, the military is going into Full-Spectrum Supremacy, AirLand Battle was divised to defend Europe from a Soviet push down the Fulda Gap in West Germany in the mid '80s. It was used against the Iraqi Army in '91 though, the first time the public got to see what the US military can do since the Vietnam War). The T-34 had no radio, like most other tanks of it's era. This means the German Army had a superior C3 (command, control, communication) architecture, resulting in superb coordination of the myriad forces of varying type. A vital necessity for the Blitzkrieg tactics first idealized in the post WW1 period were the Weimar Republic needed a way to maximize the effectiveness of it's small army imposed by the Treaty of Versailles (in effect, the Versailles Treaty gave birth to the Wehrmacht).

Had the US stayed out, even with Hitler (crazy though he was, stupid was something he was not) remaining in command(not that it would have made one wit of differance after 1941, someone else just as capable would have taken over), most of Europe from the Urals to the Faroe Islands would be speaking German right now (notable exceptions might be Finland, Italy, "Vichy" France, Sweden, other minor Axis powers in Europe and Spain), due to the advances the German engineers were always churning out.

Very nice speach,but German Blitzkrieg every time work only in short Battles,everytime when BAttle not finish quickly(one month)German not have reserve unit to cover loses.You can have SuperTanks,but without Man to drive these,you will loose War.
Examle for these is Battle for Moscow-German not have soldiers to Capture a Capital,and these whas after 4 monts of start Barbarosa operation. If you say that German Army whas superior against Soviet,how come that all bigest operation of Wermacht whas Disaster after Barbarosa operation-(Stalingrad Battle start of operation 1942-Leningrad start of operation 1941-Kursk Battle 1943 Moscow Battle 1941). All these battles start before any US involvment.
When you loose all these decisive battles and yours army stay withouth 2,5 milion experience soldiers,what can you expect-victory,i dont think so.
Many German General knows that attack on soviet union will be end of german empire.

[Freetymes]

Many well thought out answers but I think a couple of points have been missed.

First the US did get involved quite early albeit it not militarily and without the Liberty Ships and the constant supply line maintained by the merchant marines Britain would not have survived the siege. France fell without a fight and there was no way that the RAF could hold off the Nazi's indefinitely.
Second the US military was in no shape to come into the war. They were small, poorly trained (except officers, here the US was very strong), and for the most part were equipped with WWI circa arms and vehicles. It took two years in country for the US to really become able to project real dominating force and in some arenas e.g. tanks they never really caught up.

As for the fronts...
Rommel would have sewed up Northern Africa and likely the Middle East as there would not have been the means to hold or fill Brittan’s supply lines.

The Russians would not have been able to stop the Nazi's at the gates of Moscow (again US supplies) and some help from Mother Nature.

Japan was far more interested in claiming the South Pacific for the resources. Once done they would have finished off China or much like Russia for the Germans it is likely they would have set up puppet governments and called it good.

Another thing about Japan...
Had they taken out the US fleet in Pearl and over ran Hawaii it is very likely that they would have been successful in the Aleutians and the West Coast of the Americas would have been vulnerable and likely attacked as well.

America waited and indeed tried to avoid military involvement but there was never much real choice in the IF department. The US is not and was not the "Be all and end all" but as it has been said before; once tooled up the US was able to simply out produce the rest of the world and by the end could replace each lost item with three.
Also someone was very correct when they spoke of actual casualties from the Nukes vs. fire bombing... Not just Tokyo but Dresden and several smaller industrial centers were carpet bombed and set aflame killing many thousands more than either of the nukes. The nukes were for effect and to prove that there was no defense for Japan. Their use saved countless lives on both sides. And may have pissed of some others on the board but likely scared them and that has had lasting negative and positive effects to this day.

[Bavarian Raven]

*cries* stop the madness....

for japan to actually capture hawaii was not physically possible for the Japanese unless you go back about two three years to change events....and the japanese did not phyiscally have the forces necessary to conquer the west coast.....

[muy_thaiguy]

*cries* stop the madness....

for japan to actually capture hawaii was not physically possible for the Japanese unless you go back about two three years to change events....and the japanese did not phyiscally have the forces necessary to conquer the west coast.....

He didn't say conquer the West Coast, merely launch an assault. Also, before the Battle of Midway, the Japanese had an impressive naval force. As for Hawaii, the only reason why the attack initially failed was because the US Aircraft Carriers were not in harbor. Had those been in harbor, the US Western Front would have been left wide open with little to no defense against the powerful Japanese military.

[iancanton]

Many well thought out answers but I think a couple of points have been missed.

First the US did get involved quite early albeit it not militarily and without the Liberty Ships and the constant supply line maintained by the merchant marines Britain would not have survived the siege. France fell without a fight and there was no way that the RAF could hold off the Nazi's indefinitely.

the first post on this topic actually specifically excludes the lend-lease programme, of which the liberty ships were a significant part. the uk needed supplies from somewhere. what u haven't mentioned is that the germans did too, but they had few partners to provide supplies, especially of fuel. after stalingrad, the german army had its hands full against a resurgent soviet union and never again won a major battle on the eastern front. against this background, with fuel shortages on the german side and with the raf having superiority in the air, there was no way that invasion of the uk could even be contemplated.

after stalingrad, germany was always going to lose. it was just a matter of time. military intervention by the united states speeded up the process and saved hundreds of thousands of lives, but did not change the fact of germany's defeat. the americans did, however, ensure that stalin controlled only half of mainland europe instead of nearly all of it. the usa did save western europe: not from nazism, but from communism.

ian.

[AlgyTaylor]

Going by what Winston Churchill had said, i firmly believe that the British Empire would've kept on fighting, even if Britain had been overrun by German forces. Although I'd think it'd be highly unlikely as Britain was in a very good defensive position.

Suspect WWII would've taken longer without US intervention, but I can't see that the Nazis would've been able to mount a strong enough challenge on the western front, what with Russia being a HUGE thorn in their side.

Suspect without the US, most of Europe would either be under soviet control (a la the eastern bloc) or 'submissive' to Russia in the same way that, say, the Ukraine is today.

[Juan_Bottom]

This is ludicrous. Hitler was winning the blockade of Great Briton. He didn't have to win any battles against them, just starve them into peace terms. And without the U.S., he would have.
So Hitler didn't have to win any decisive battles against either side. All he had to do was wait for peace terms, and then go full tilt against the Soviets.
And let's not fully assume that Japan would just ignore her allies being utterly defeated. And again without the U.S., Japan would have beaten China. Freeing her up to help her allies.

[Qwert]

Freetymes
The Russians would not have been able to stop the Nazi's at the gates of Moscow (again US supplies) and some help from Mother Nature.

What supply?
------------------------------------------------------------------

Battle of Moscow.
Germans
Therefore, the city was a primary target for the large and well-equipped Army Group Center. The forces committed to Operation Typhoon included three armies (the 2nd, 4th and 9th) supported by three Panzer Groups (the 2nd, 3rd and 4th) and by the Luftwaffe's Luftflotte 2. Overall, more than one million men were committed to the operation, along with 1,700 tanks, 14,000 guns. German aerial strength had been radically reduced. Since the 22 June the Luftwaffe had lost 1,603 aircraft and 1,028 damaged. As a result Luftflotte 2 had only 549 servicable machines, including 158 medium and dive-bombers and 172 fighters[18]. The attack relied on standard blitzkrieg tactics, using Panzer groups rushing deep into Soviet formations and executing double-pincer movements, pocketing Red Army divisions and destroying them.
Russians
Facing the Wehrmacht were three Soviet fronts formed from exhausted armies that had already been involved in heavy fighting for several months. The forces committed to the city's defense totaled 1,250,000 men, 1,000 tanks, 7,600 guns. The Soviet Air Force/Voenno-Vozdushnye Sily (VVS) had suffered appalling losses of some 21,200 aircraft[21]. Extraordinary industrial achievements had replaced losses, and the VVS had 936 aircraft, 578 of which were bombers for the defense of the capital[22]. However, these troops, while presenting a significant threat to the Wehrmacht based on their numbers alone, were poorly located, with most of the troops deployed in a single line, and had little or no reserves to the rear.[17] In his memoirs, Vasilevsky pointed out that while immediate Soviet defenses were quite well prepared, these errors in troop placement were largely responsible for the Wehrmacht's initial success.[23] Furthermore, many Soviet defenders were seriously lacking in combat experience and some critical equipment (such as anti-tank weapons), while their tanks were obsolete models.
The German divisions committed to the final assault on Moscow numbered 943,000 men, 1,500 tanks, while Soviet forces were reduced to a shadow of their former selves, with barely 500,000 men, 890 tanks.
Final German attack on moscow 15 november 1941
Soviet counterofansive 5 december 1941.
Soviet reserves ran low, and the offensive halted on January 7, 1942, after having pushed the exhausted and freezing German armies back 100 to 250 km (60 to 150 mi) from Moscow. This victory provided an important boost for Soviet morale, with the Wehrmacht suffering its first defeat. Having failed to vanquish the Soviet Union in one quick strike, Germany now had to prepare for a prolonged struggle. Operation Barbarossa had failed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well if you look these information,everybody will say before battle that russian will lost,but they not lost,they won.

Now supply.
------------------------------------------------

The First Moscow Conference of World War II took place from September 29, 1941 to October 1, 1941.
Averell Harriman representing the United States of America and Lord Beaverbrook representing the United Kingdom met with Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union to give assurances that those two leading Allies of World War II would aid and support the Soviet Union in the common fight against Nazi Germany.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If russian waith these supply to fight against germans,then German will conquer Moscow.
So,US supply come after Battle of Moscow,and you are not right.
Without US, Russian,British and other Allied Countries will defeat Germany(in Europe,aim not counting Italy,because they almost lost all battles in africa against British army-Operation Compass Italian losing 175000 men,and without support of Germany italian will be lost all Nort africa).

[Qwert]

And let's not fully assume that Japan would just ignore her allies being utterly defeated. And again without the U.S., Japan would have beaten China. Freeing her up to help her allies.

Are you serious?
Do you know that bettwen 1937-1939 Japanese expedition Forces lost several Battles against Chinese Army.
i can give you a list of Battles who japanes lost against Chinese betwen 1939-1941 before Entry of US in war.Japanese army only conquer coast of China(these is small part of china,low lands,easy to advance with tanks)and not have any chance to take large part of China,who whas covered with Mountains.Can you explane how will Japanes conquer China.

[muy_thaiguy]

And let's not fully assume that Japan would just ignore her allies being utterly defeated. And again without the U.S., Japan would have beaten China. Freeing her up to help her allies.

Are you serious?
Do you know that bettwen 1937-1939 Japanese expedition Forces lost several Battles against Chinese Army.
i can give you a list of Battles who japanes lost against Chinese betwen 1939-1941 before Entry of US in war.Japanese army only conquer coast of China(these is small part of china,low lands,easy to advance with tanks)and not have any chance to take large part of China,who whas covered with Mountains.Can you explane how will Japanes conquer China.

Care to explain Manchuria then? Because that is a fairly good chunk of land there.

[InkL0sed]

And let's not fully assume that Japan would just ignore her allies being utterly defeated. And again without the U.S., Japan would have beaten China. Freeing her up to help her allies.

Are you serious?
Do you know that bettwen 1937-1939 Japanese expedition Forces lost several Battles against Chinese Army.
i can give you a list of Battles who japanes lost against Chinese betwen 1939-1941 before Entry of US in war.Japanese army only conquer coast of China(these is small part of china,low lands,easy to advance with tanks)and not have any chance to take large part of China,who whas covered with Mountains.Can you explane how will Japanes conquer China.

Care to explain Manchuria then? Because that is a fairly good chunk of land there.

Qwert mentioned Manchuria (though not by name) in that post.

I'm also fairly certain he knows just a little more about WWII than you do...

[Juan_Bottom]

And let's not fully assume that Japan would just ignore her allies being utterly defeated. And again without the U.S., Japan would have beaten China. Freeing her up to help her allies.

Are you serious?
Do you know that bettwen 1937-1939 Japanese expedition Forces lost several Battles against Chinese Army.
i can give you a list of Battles who japanes lost against Chinese betwen 1939-1941 before Entry of US in war.Japanese army only conquer coast of China(these is small part of china,low lands,easy to advance with tanks)and not have any chance to take large part of China,who whas covered with Mountains.Can you explane how will Japanes conquer China.

Care to explain Manchuria then? Because that is a fairly good chunk of land there.

Qwert mentioned Manchuria (though not by name) in that post.

I'm also fairly certain he knows just a little more about WWII than you do...

I didn't see the reference to Manchuria either. The Chinese used U.S. aid to stop the Japanese advances. The Japanese just took too much territory too quickly(elsewhere in the pacific), and streched her forces thinly. And so
Japan sort of ignored China once her advances had stalled. Instead, she went for resources elsewhere. I think that it is niave to say that Japan wasn't winning against China. It's not about the battle, its about the war.