What if the United States had remained completely out of the European theatre of WWII?
>no troops in any forms, including volunteers
>no lend-lease at all
>a policy of equally refrained sales to all combatants
>not allowing vessels of belligerents to enter US waters
So no destroyers or planes or tanks to Britain, no troops to North Africa, no trains, planes and automobiles to the USSR, no steel or grain or fuel to any of them.
Say America only focuses on wiping Japan out and defending its modest holdings.
How might WWII have gone? More importantly, would Britain have survived on its own?
Britain never loses.
Perfidious Albion would have found some coalition or some way to win, like a street fighter backed into a corner.
Don't forget the Battle of Britain was fought, won and lost while the US was neutral and the USSR were the Nazis allies.
>How might WWII have gone? More importantly, would Britain have survived on its own?
Definitely. They might not have ever been able to counterattack on the mainland of Europe on their own, but Sealion's never going to happen, North Africa isn't going to fall due to Rommel's atrocious logistical situation, and by mid 1941, the u-boats are getting less and less effective as british air cover intensifies, intelligence improves, and the convoy system gets its kinks worked out.
>a policy of equally refrained sales to all combatants
I would point out that in theory, this is evenhanded, in practice, it's pro-British, since Britain is really the only European power that can ship things openly in the Atlantic: Italy's hemmed in by Gibraltar, and anything going to and from Germany is going to have to go all the way around Britain unless you want to brave the channel mines, and good luck getting that through the Royal Navy.
>completely out of the European theatre
Does this mean they're just not sending troops, or that they're not aiding the Allies at all? Because if the former, then the war may have gone a lot differently. If the latter, the Soviets would probably push all the way through Europe while the Brits don't have the manpower to commence their own invasion.
Germans were never in position of overpowering RAF and have committed several mistakes on the eastern front which have proven fatal, regardless of lend-lease.
Without overpowering RAF they couldn't even dream about dealing with Royal Navy, without dealing with Royal Navy, there was no chance to land on British coasts.
Committing mentioned mistakes has cost them initiative, sure without lend-lease USSR would take far bigger casualties but in the end it's likely that they would conquer the rest of continental Europe, because ever since they've got the initiative, they were on their road to whack Germans from offensive to offensive.
This would likely have meant a standstill in Russia with an eventual peace drawn along the 1941 winter borders.
Because with no US support, the Soviets would not have made any headway.
Italy would never have been invaded and not Normandy either.
It's possible that the North African campaign would be more drawn out too, considering the no US aid to Britain and no US troops. It would lead to an eventual German defeat however.
It might very well result in a much shorter war, with a German victory over Russia but a German defeat against Britain. However, the Third Reich would remain - a detriment to future peace.
>Because with no US support, the Soviets would not have made any headway.
They would lose few hundred thousand more men and make the headway. Then Germans would likely commit the same mistakes and end up in the same way. Especially as US lend lease for USSR started mattering in early 1942.
I always love how germanboos think that any operation during the war in USSR german army failed was failed because Soviets were just little little bit stronger. No. This is wrong. At the point when they've reached Moscow winter has started and Wermacht was ill-prepared for it(at least that early). They were overextended, even their guns had troubles to operate because their smears froze. They've had to pull back.
Then, Germans screwed up. In Stalingrad Soviets took 300 thousand PoW. On relatively tiny area. They've put huge amount of heavily mechanised troops into meatgrinder instead of using them to achieve local numerical superiority on their sides, which were guarded by Romanians and Hungarians who were simply outgunned by Russians no matter what.
The fact that Kursk happened was a mistake but "missing" 2 millions soldiers and 2000 tanks on the Russian side was enormous display of German intelligence not doing its job. And they've lost again.
Bargation? Again, Germans had no idea where it was coming from.
And again and again and again. Little incompetence here, little overextension there and they've lost the war.
Not him, but a lot of that deception/intelligence failure happened because the Soviets could move across operational axis way, way faster than the Germans gave them credit for. And a large reason they could do that was because of Lend-Lease, all those trucks and railroad supplies that the Americans provided. Take that away, and suddenly the Red Army's capabilities decrease massively, and with smaller capabilities, they become more predictable.
There probably wouldn't have been a D-Day, or if there was it would either fail or the Allies would have far more casualties on their hands.
Furthermore, the U.S.S.R. would not have gotten much needed supplies from the U.S. The war on the East would therefore have continued for longer.
Since there is now very little risk of a D-Day happening, Germany can afford to send more troops to the East to combat the Russians.
Except there is not a shred of evidence ze Nazis could have conquered Britain, their attempt to do so was defeated before the USA and the USSR (except as Nazi allies) were involved.
Point me to the part of the American Revolution where the French weren't involved.
You could claim that Britain won the battle on its own or claim that Britains diplomacy won it trade, but this still violates the ops terms.
Trade + german blockade overrun. Its quite an op theory.
Likely outcome is that Russia suffers even more than they did, but end up taking Europe.
The Nazis had no hope of invading Britain except for many years down the road - if they somehow defeated the commies. The didn't have the means to get their army across the channel.
You appear to be confusing Britain trading with neutral countries and "funding".
Britain happily smashed every attempt to smash transatlantic trade even before the USSR and the USA got involved.
>no trains, planes, and automobiles to the USSR
Hitler would've pushed further into Russia and maybe even take the three major cities that each army group focused on due to the fact that Red Army logistics were abysmal without the help of American lend lease, ergo they could not mount significant offensives like Bagration or the series of counterattacks once Kursk was over. Operations Uranus, Mars, and Saturn would have been severely limited and the Sixth Army could have even been able to be rescued at Stalingrad.
The Nazis probably would have given up on Russia though at some point once Hitler decided he had everything he came for.
You can't just set an arbitrary point of departure that goes against historical facts and logic. British and French actions leading up to WW2 were made with the knowledge that they would have US backing in a potential war against Germany. If you want an isolationist US, then you have to go back to at least the end of WW1 and make many adjustments leading up to WW2, including the many times the US bailed Germany out.
I'd just like to point out that Britain was the third country to develop an atom bomb, and the USSR's design was stolen from the Americans.
I'd expect Britain to continue to rule the waves, and eventually, in 1950 or so, Britain to simply nuke the Germans.
Of course, Britain would hardly have the ground troops to capitalize on that, so they might have to settle for putting Europe into chaos and raining hellfire on anyone who tries to put Europe out of chaos.
US was still massively trading with Britian and supporting them over Germany.
This may have been the time where we did "bases for boats" or just basic "send your ships to us and you can buy shit"
No lend-lease, a fuck up of a soviet transportation system.
pic related is what won the war for the soviets
Mind you, the germans could never ever have achieved their war aims against the soviet union.
Without American aid, Germany would have won in the North African theather without a doubt. Furthermore, much of tbe british fleet was kept up with supplies from the US. Had they not received this, the Italian fleet would have stood a much better chance in the Mediteranean than they now did. It's quite possible Malta would have fallen as early as 1940 in this scenario.
With Tobruk and Malta gone the British would have pushed out of the Mediteranean. If so, Franco would have joined and taken Gibraltar (this is something that was discussed).
In short, Germany would have won the war.
both moscow and stalingrad were soviet victories without any (former) or very minuscule (latter) american deliveries - especially those of the logistical kind
lend lease was very important but its impact was felt later in the war, this goes double for the logistics and supply factors of it (as opposed to immediate armaments, more useful and prominent in earlier deliveries)
>Without American aid, Germany would have won in the North African theather without a doubt.
>Furthermore, much of tbe british fleet was kept up with supplies from the US.
No. The British had no trouble maintaining the fleet for decades, during peacetime.
>With Tobruk and Malta gone the British would have pushed out of the Mediteranean.
Why? They still have the Suez, and the Germans and Italians still can't do a damn thing to take it.
>In short, Germany would have won the war.
Why? Even if it played out exactly as your wehraboo fantasies, you haven't laid out a single Strategic loss to the British.
>can we discuss how fucked britain would be in the japanese theatre
With no U.S. involvement, Japan never goes to war with Britain so...
They weren't so much strong armed, as they had already made their currencies non-convertable, and the U.S. seized Japanese gold deposits and made the Dollar not convertible to the Yen at the same time.
So from Britain and the Netherlands perspective, the Japanese had no money.
Prooooobably, if they had known the Japanese were going to go full retard.
Except, if they had known what the Japanese planned, lol, American entry into the war.
But yeah, the British and Dutch weren't really interested in giving the Japanese free stuff when they were fighting for their existence.
Also, it wouldn't have gotten around the refining problem Japan faced. The DEI oil thing is a myth. The Japanese needed refined oil products. Britain could have theoretically provided that but wow...can you imagine the laugh the cabinet would have at Japan asking Britain to divert shipping halfway around the world to provide aerial fuel to the Japanese for no money in the middle of WWII?
DEI oil thing is actually not a myth. What the fuck are you even talking about? DEI was one of the larger oil producers.
And I don't know exactly how retarded you have to be to argue that Japan would have gone to war even with available oil imports because they weren't getting specifically REFINED oil. Attacking and taking DEI wouldn't have given them any more refined oil.
I'm not sure about the answers but I do know the Germans run their industry like retards. Hitler had promised no shortages like in WW1 so they were making stuff like fridges late into the war. The British had fully mobilized their industry and out produced the Germans in aircraft. Indeed the Germans once they began using their industry properly were able to compensate for the destruction which allied air raids were doing.
Then how do you explain that they attacked and occupied the NEI during the war, and used that as pretty much their only oil source? How come Soemu Toyoda, in command of the Combined fleet, noted that it was worthless trying to hold onto the navy if they lost the Philippines because they would be cut off from their fuel source in Indonesia?
Probably would have backed off Britain, Japan would continue unchecked into China and Russia meeting Germany. Britain would be focussing on recovering at which point the axis might be strong enough to take Britain.
This is objectively true
Burgers just think the dumb Commie Ivan's can't do shit on their own and are retards. Basically it's the result of the Germans and Cold War propagandists getting their wa
End of the day the USSR had a strong industrial base in Siberia and a people United with iron will, no matter what the Nazis or a couple Baltic fuckups wanted to say about it. Even starving and beaten, with many hating the Soviet government, only tiny minorities of POWs joined The Germans
As for transport it was important. But it was decisive in 1944 after decisive red army victories.
Sure, the war takes longer. But this means more casualties and a hardening of Soviet resolve.
What people also fail to realize is this makes the NVKD much more powerful as they use probably British intelligence and radios to Co ordinate control of the Western Communist partisans which made the majority of resistance in every country but Belgium and Poland. Thus there is a huge resistance now loyal to Moscow and controlled by te NKVD. Even if the war takes until 1948 and another 2 million Red Army soldiers die, this means there's another 3 years for.solely Communist resistance movements to grow and for the USSR to ein the propaganda war as the liberators kf Europe. Then America and the UK are pissed as the continent is Communist. And with a huge popular mandate. And without a Marshall Plan.
The USSR will be shattered but now they'll have the whole of Europe to use for punitive reparations as they did to the GDR
SImilarly though, people who overstate with the position that the USSR did EVERYTHING are equally wrong and annoying.
By 1943, you had roughly a quarter of the Wehrmacht (and far more than that when it came to Luftwaffe assets) arrayed against the Western Allies. Now, granted, a lot of it wasn't actively fighting, you had extensive deployments in places like Yugoslavia and Greece and Norway to block Allied landings that never materialized, but they were there, and the Americans and British were keeping them from making a meaningful participation.
And of course, that proportion would go up as the Allies started making landings in France and driving towards Germany.
I completely agree
They were called Allies because it was an Allied effort
However I think you'd find it impossible for even General Eisenhower to debate the majority of the heavy lifting done on land was by the Soviets, and after their initial shitshow of 1941 they did it rather well given the tools at their disposal.
Now course keep in mind rhe Germans would have had still probably 15% of their divisions in Europe and Africa. As I said above the war would have been much longer and bloodied. But I'd still bet on the USSR to come out on top, albeit at a much larger cost.
Same time, what will the US be like after to oppose them? They'll not have been in the war, so little technology or military lessons learned. They won't have fully recovered from their depression. And they'll have a strong isolationist lobby.
Still it makes for interesting brainstorming, I just think the muh lend lease meme is shit
>le enemy at the Gates meme
Sorry m8 most of the populace supported the Red Army, VSKP(b) and Stalin. I know it shatters the burger view of le ebin shooting retreaters meme but pls try to not shitpost
American public education detected.
By the time America really entered the war, the European side of it had already been set in stone. It was the Russians who won the war in Europe, not the Americans. The Americans were a late extra asset, at best. If America had never entered the war, it would have made very little difference on the European front, in terms of military power and aid. (And even in the Pacific end of the war, the Japanese surrender actually had a lot more to do with the threat the Russian's represented to Japan, than the two nukes we dropped on them.)
Politically, on the other hand...
What America really did during WWII, between FDR and Truman, was play the political game to dictate what was to the shape of the world come the war's end. Marginalizing Stalin, putting an end to the British and French empires, establishing a nuclear weapons monopoly (however temporary), it was in this fashion that America shaped the world. Not by force of arms, but by a grand foresight -- followed by a total lack there of.
>. The Americans were a late extra asset, at best. If America had never entered the war, it would have made very little difference on the European front, in terms of military power and aid.
Yes, we'll just ignore lend-lease entirely, as well as close to 30% of the Heer and 75% of the Luftwaffe from 1943 onwards.
>(And even in the Pacific end of the war, the Japanese surrender actually had a lot more to do with the threat the Russian's represented to Japan, than the two nukes we dropped on them.)
Yeah, the Soviets would have totally invaded with that huge fleet they didn't have and their 0 experience in amphibious operations.
>Japan would continue unchecked into China
They had barely advanced since their beginning offensives which took northern China and had no way to combat the Chinese manpower and resorce/terrain advantages
>Germany advances more into the soviets and meets up with Japan
The soviets were able to push back the Nazi offensives many times with either no or minimal amounts of lend lease. More Nazi offensives would have been impossible and even if they did succeed the soviets made it clear they were going to fight to the last man and due to advantages in manpower and recorces, couped with Commonwealth bombing a and even potential invasion in the west the Germans had no way to hold out in the long run
Eisenhower himself said in his autobiography that the Russians did the majority of the work in defeating the Germans during most of the war and it would have been impossible to win without them
Sealion never, sure, but would Africa really have gone down the same way without American Lend-Lease contributions? A ton of heavy equipment was lost at Dunkirk which Lend-Lease helped cover.
Then again the British still had Dominion detachments... but it's hard to really think about counterfactuals like this since there was such close cooperation between Canada/Britain/America in terms of production of armaments and training crew.
>Sealion never, sure, but would Africa really have gone down the same way without American Lend-Lease contributions?
Yes. The Germans could never supply a logistics train to achieve any meaningful strategic aims in Africa.
I am aware of the Manchuko offensive. It didn't threaten Japan. At worst, it would mean their position in China is hopeless, but the Soviets still have no means of affecting the Home Islands.
>Sealion never, sure, but would Africa really have gone down the same way without American Lend-Lease contributions?
Yes. Put simply, the logistical stretch of trying to move so far away from his port of call in Tripoli was breaking Rommel's back; this doesn't change whether or not the U.S. gets involved.
Even after Dunkirk and before the Americans got involved, the Middle East Command had like 340,000 troops, even if they couldn't deploy them all at once because the British had similar logistical issues trying to project force out of Alexandria.
Rommel would have been able to defend a lot better, but capture Suez? Nobody.