People talk about how "America did not win the World Wars

America would still become the dominant superpower that it is today. I reckon Germany would still have got rekt but it would have cost a lot more European lives.

In regards to WW1:

>the Germans are not rushed into the Spring offensive
>therefore, they are not repelled at the Second battle of the Marne
>the war drags on for some more months, but the rationing on the homefront culminates in upheavals
>peace treaty is signed in winter or spring of 1919

I don't think it would've had cause to develop the strong navy that it had by 1945 (and Japan probably would've ended up with the world's biggest navy). It also probably would not have had any role in establishing the new economic world order as it did after WW2.

A very basic explanation, but essentially WW2 led to the US having a 1. a very strong navy, and 2. an unrivalled position of economic supremacy over the rest of the world as established by various post-war global economic agreements and institutions. The US would simply be wasting its potential as a global superpower (but from what I'm hearing from some pro-Trump Americans, this is what they basically want.)

>>1860965
> essentially WW2 led to the US having a 1. a very strong navy, and 2. an unrivalled position of economic supremacy over the rest of the world
On Dec 6, 1941, US navy was the largest in the world and the Iowas and Essexes were already procured and being built. US was the world's top economy by mid to late 19th century. You are an imbecile who should just never have, let alone state, your opinions about anything.

>>1860927
Would the USA still support the allies through the Lend-Lease act?

>>1860975

Nah, the period between the late 19th century (the US was still protecting its economy from British industrial goods in the mid 19th century so we can abandon a timeframe as early as that right away) right up to about 1945 was still dominated by the British Empire. WW2 finally dismantled the UK's ability to maintain its empire and the non-imperialistic US was alone to establish, as I said, an unrivalled position of economic supremacy. Poor countries stopped becoming dependent on the UK and its empire for industrial goods and got them from the US instead, almost exclusively, from 1945 onwards.

The navy is also the same. At the start of WW2, the British still had the world's largest navy but the Japanese navy had superior ships. Both navies got decimated by the war and it was the US alone who possessed both the largest and superior navy out of any other nation in the world following its need to wage war over the pacific.

>>1860993

I'm assuming not. It's definitely a non-neutral stance.


>>1860975

Don't forget how Japan's overall naval tonnage was still less than Britain's even before you get to the U.S., and that the idea of Japan having the world's biggest navy is a fantasy of the most improbable order.
As for OP's question.

American participation was relatively minor in WW1, at least compared to WW2. You have a number of variables, depending on whether or not the Allies could regain momentum on the Western front without them (On one hand, they're out a lot of men and munitions and supplies and morale. On the other, by 1918 you were starting to see tactical developments on the French and even the British which were starting to surpass what the Germans had, which might have been enough on its own to tip the scales)

Given Michael's failure, it's unreasonable to assume German total victory on the Western Front, whether or not there would be a successful Entente counterattack is less clear. If there is not one, it boils down to who can endure the privations of a war economy longer; ordinarily that would easily be the Entente, the only chance Germany has is if they can access sufficient resources quickly from their new gains in what used to be Russian imperial territory.

In either case, you are unlikely to see the sort of conditions that would even lead to a recognizable WW2 if the Entente wins without American participation, you're not going to see a temporizing effect from the American delegation, and you probably will see Germany partitioned and occupied.

If they don't, you probably have a completely shattered Western and central Europe as all these states more or less internally collapse. Anything could happen at that point.

>>1861018

Not him, but at the start of WW2, both the U.S. and the British commonwealth were still largely abiding by the London Naval Treaty, which gave them parity in tonnage and generally, the U.S. ships were more modern.

It is also far from clear that the "Japanese navy had superior ships". And, to be honest, little of it matters because the U.S. did have by the 30s-40s enough industrial capacity to spit out way more ships than either Japan or the CW, and in all likelihood more than both of them combined if push really came to shove.

>>1861018
As I said,
>You are an imbecile who should just never have, let alone state, your opinions about anything.

>>1860927
WW1 just takes longer, but the end is the same.
The borders may be different without US involvement. Maybe harsher on Germany, Treaty of London (1915) in effect means no Yugoslavia but Serbia and Italy. This would lead to Italy not joining the axis.

As for WW2 the war in Europe would not be so different, maybe the Soviets would be met with heavier resistance from the Germans. The USSR would have more power over Europe but let's not go into the cold war.
As for Japan.
They get bum rushed by the Soviets in mainland Asia.
But without the American navy there would be no way of getting to the home islands.
Hard to say how long it would take for the Japanese to give up.

Now, alternatively if we look at it from my perspective of post WW1 borders.
Italy would not join the axis.
Nazi Germany could have been stopped at the Anschluss or Czechoslovakia. Heck, maybe they wouldn't dare re militarize the Rhineland. Maybe it would have been so disjointed that anything that could lead to German resurgence would be stomped out immediately.

>>1861059
The Germans are now free to effectively double the size of their military in the Eastern Front, on top of the Soviets lacking Lend-Lease. Which accounted for, among other things, 1/8 their tanks, 58% of their high octane aviation fuel, 30% of their aircraft, 53% of artillery ammunition, and the majority of trucks. Best case scenario for the Soviets is a stalemate; they're not going to roll into Berlin.

>As for Japan. They get bum rushed by the Soviets in mainland Asia.

The Soviets had zero interest in going to war with Japan. Though, without America knocking Japan out of the war, you may very well see the Japanese putting more funding into their army and launching Hachi-Go, the plan to destroy the Soviet army groups in the Far East and seize Soviet territory up to Lake Baikal. The commander of the Far Eastern Front himself (A. K. Kazakovtsev) thought that his men would've gotten annihilated in such an event. And that was just with the resources the Japanese had on hand in reality; in a hypothetical where they never go to war with the USA, the army they devote to this task will of course be much larger and more powerful.

This, along with the absence of Lend-Lease, potentially has huge butterfly effects during the 1941-1942 portion of the Eastern Front. In reality, a Soviet spy was able to find out that the Japanese had no plans to attack them in 1941, and this allowed the Soviets to transfer nearly a million men to the west just in time to save Moscow (they did buff the Far East/Siberia command back up as soon as they could, though). That wouldn't happen here.

>Nazi Germany could have been stopped at the Anschluss or Czechoslovakia.

The balance of power favored the Allies far more in 1940 than it did in 1938. They were simply not ready at the time. And when they were ready, with superiority in all numbers of materiel besides aircraft, they still got destroyed.

>>1861120
>The Germans are now free to effectively double the size of their military in the Eastern Front,


Not really, given that the Eastern Front always consumed more than 50% of Heer allocations from 1941 onwards, and the Germans own logistical troubles means that they can't necessarily deploy all those extra forces even if they have them. And places like Norway, southern France, Italy, (once North Africa goes, and it will, sooner or later) Yugoslavia, Greece, etc; are going to need to be guarded by something.

>The Soviets had zero interest in going to war with Japan. Though, without America knocking Japan out of the war, you may very well see the Japanese putting more funding into their army and launching Hachi-Go, the plan to destroy the Soviet army groups in the Far East and seize Soviet territory up to Lake Baikal.

Because the Soviets won at Khalkin Gol on the backs of Lend-Lease?

>And that was just with the resources the Japanese had on hand in reality; in a hypothetical where they never go to war with the USA, the army they devote to this task will of course be much larger and more powerful.

OP's hypothetical assumes an oil embargo, which pretty much cripples Japan's capabilities once that happens, unless they go into the NEI, which is tantamount to declaring war anyway.

>>1861120
>This, along with the absence of Lend-Lease, potentially has huge butterfly effects during the 1941-1942 portion of the Eastern Front. In reality, a Soviet spy was able to find out that the Japanese had no plans to attack them in 1941, and this allowed the Soviets to transfer nearly a million men to the west just in time to save Moscow (they did buff the Far East/Siberia command back up as soon as they could, though). That wouldn't happen here.


And in actual reality, the Soviets started transferring people from the Far East well before Sorge's report in mid-September, and that's assuming that

A) the Japanese actually attack, despite it having little strategic value to them and getting a bloody nose the last time they did.

B) That the same STAVKA that embarked on scorched earth policies of unprecedented magnitude wouldn't do the same in the East, and sacrifice a huge perimeter and just fall back along the Trans-Siberian Railway, burning track as they went, and shoved even more troops to the German front.

>>1861059
>The borders may be different without US involvement. Maybe harsher on Germany,
>As for WW2

Doesnt add up
Harsher terms on Germany after WW1 = no WW2

>>1861143
That's a big if, but really it depends on who you ask. If you mean that they actually enforce the restrictions they impose on Germany, then yeah

>>1861137
>Not really, given that the Eastern Front always consumed more than 50% of Heer allocations from 1941 onwards,

Meanwhile nearly the entire Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine was in the western theaters as well as ~40% of the Heer. Even just a 20% difference could massively shift the war in their favor. Do remember that by the time the war ended, nearly every military-age male in the USSR had been killed or wounded.

>Because the Soviets won at Khalkin Gol on the backs of Lend-Lease?

Khalkin Gol was a border skirmish where the Soviets put the best of their military against one understrength light infantry division. In fact, it was the greenest, most poorly trained division in the Kwantung Army.

Despite this, the loss rates were horrendous for the Soviets; 1.5:1 in men, 1.5:1, 9.2:1 in tanks/armored cars. If the first-rate Japanese troops merely manage similar performance to that of their JV team against the best that the Far Eastern Front had to offer, they more than have this in the bag. This would also be the same Soviet army that, I remind you, lost hundreds of thousands of troops to Finnish and Italian offensives consisting almost solely of light infantry.

The actual Soviet commanders at the time very much disagree with the assertion that they could have handled the Japanese in 1941-1942.

>OP's hypothetical assumes an oil embargo, which pretty much cripples Japan's capabilities once that happens, unless they go into the NEI, which is tantamount to declaring war anyway.

No, the USA is not going to dive headfirst into war solely to protect European colonialism. No one gave a shit about the Dutch, the Japanese taking the NEI will not result in a declaration of war from the Americans. It will, however, provide far more than they need to cover their oil needs. The DEI produced 55 million barrels of oil annually, which was more than enough for all Japan's war needs of about 30 million barrels a year, 22 million of which were imported from the Americans

>>1860927
I think the Central Powers would've surrendered ww1 anyways - Austria tried to sign a separate peace back in 1917 (Sixtus Affair). They were in bad shape, bleeding manpower, and not making any progress. I think both Austria and Germany would've made concessions, but Austria would've stayed intact.

As for ww2, Germany would've lost either way, but Japan not. I think Japan would've become "the new USA".

>>1861018
>right up to about 1945 was still dominated by the British Empire
>British empire
>not being on its lasts legs by 1916
What kind of anglo autism do you have to think British Empire dominated anything past ww1?

>>1861204
The British Empire never dominated any "period" anyway
It dominated the shitholes it ruled and that's it
Even during the 19th and early 20th century, Britain couldnt do shit in Europe unless carried by strong allies (Crimean War, WW1...)

>>1861190

>Meanwhile nearly the entire Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine was in the western theaters as well

And what exactly is the navy going to do against Russia? And you're still going to have logistical issues actually putting thousands of planes into the field supplied by mud roads in Russia, and you still have to leave quite a bit behind just to stop the British night raids.

>Do remember that by the time the war ended, nearly every military-age male in the USSR had been killed or wounded.

Source. Because that sounds suspiciously like you pulled it out of your ass.


>Khalkin Gol was a border skirmish where the Soviets put the best of their military against one understrength light infantry division

Since when do "one understrength light infantry divisions" of the Japanese have 30-40,000 men, 300 artillery pieces, air support, and tanks?

>In fact, it was the greenest, most poorly trained division in the Kwantung Army.

Oh yeah, show me where you read that about the 23rd.

>Despite this, the loss rates were horrendous for the Soviets; 1.5:1 in men, 1.5:1, 9.2:1 in tanks/armored cars.

Japanese propaganda is fact now! Next up, Nanking didn't happen! Not that I really believe the Soviet figures either, but it's absolutely ridiculous to assume loss ratios like that when you actually had said 23rd wiped out and not to be brought back up to strength until 1944; and no comparable Soviet envelopments and obliterations.

>No, the USA is not going to dive headfirst into war solely to protect European colonialism

Which is of course why FDR promised a guarantee to the Dutch government in Exile to protect their holdings in order to get the Dutch to sign off on said oil embargo.

Now, maybe he couldn't get Congress to go along with it, but he certainly promised that, and the Japanese certainly took it seriously, which is why they attacked Pearl Harbor in the first place instead of just ignoring the Americans, seizing the NEI, and continuing their war in China.

>>1860927

>>1853396

The Soviets fired 20 times as much artillery shells as the us.

There were ten times more casualties in the east.

http://www.ww2f.com/topic/50169-fuel-consumption-of-allied-divisions/

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Logistics2/USA-E-Logistics2-7.html

By January 1945 U.S. forces had been allocated a total of 950,000 barrels.31 Intake of the system eventually averaged more than 30,000 barrels per day, some of which was pumped forward for decanting at Maastricht, and later at Wesel.32

Soviets were consuming hundreds of millions of barrels per year and over a million barrels per day.

The western front was tiny and irrelevant.

>>1861018
>retard alert

>>1861190
>Do remember that by the time the war ended, nearly every military-age male in the USSR had been killed or wounded.
And yet they were fielding he largest land army of any combatant by a wide margin.

>>1861252
You realize that the thread you just linked too had an argument where it was proven that the western front wasn't irrelevant at all? Did you even read the thread?

>>1860927
Less Holocaust propaganda, and America would be less powerful.

>>1861298

It clearly shows the west being completely irrelevant for the military defeat of Germany. It's relevant in other ways but definitely not militarily.

>>1861310
It sped up the wars end and saved millions of lives on the eastern front, and most likely liberated western Europe from being communist. Explain how that is militarily irrelevant.

>>1861332

I don't mean absolutely irrelevant it's just that it made maybe a few months of difference. The strategic bombing was far more important than anything in France or west Germany.

>>1861415

Not even him, but you had damn near even commitment between West and East come August of 1944. That is hardly irrelevant.

>>1861416

Even commitment in manpower? That doesn't mean anything. The Germans sent their exhausted and low quality units west. The Panzer Lehr was only elite because it survived so long in Africa and other minor theatres.

>>1861420

>The Germans sent their exhausted and low quality units west.

Yeah, like all those Hungarians and Romanians! Oh wait, they were all East.

And let's not forget that the overwhelming majority of Luftwaffe strength was against the West.

Maybe you'll be the first, but I've never once seen anyone cite to anything showing that on average, troops in the Western theaters were of lower quality than the troops on the Eastern theaters.

>>1861143
As addressed later in my post.

>>1860927
world wars would be a few months longer.
England could have suffered a bit.
Nothing would have changed besides that.

>>1860927
The simplest way to say this is the British sucked. They always did, British people could not handle themselves ESPECIALLY in WWII. In WWI it was 5-7 K/D German-Anglo, and in WWII they act like they did anything other than win against Italians and get allies massacred due to terrible planning, which they did in WWI as well with Gallipoli.
British people are just stupid, an Island nation with sincerely ugly people sorta shows how inbred they are.

>>1861645

The crappiest ostgruppen were sent west. They basically didn't fight.

>>1860927
>WWII
It would last longer but the Axiscucks will still lose out of sheer fucking attrition.

Can you seriously imagine Axis occupation of European countries, Russia, and China to last long?

The only difference would be Axis countries would still survive as they are. Germany will fall back and remain Nazi. Japs will fall back and remain militarist.

>>1860927
If America stayed neutral they'd be part of the Japanese empire.

>>1862921
kek
The japanese would have parts of china/korea. But the united states?
No way.

The eastern front would has been steam rolled and the german army would have made it to the southern oil reserves in the Middle East. Rather than splitting forces and going north into Stalingrad, they would have continued on.

wew lad this thread is autism central

>>1862931
Yea you can invade west coast then deal with rocky mountains, death valley, continental divide then 800 miles of flat lands in all direction populated by angry drunk Swedish , scots, german and narive second generation farmers back when you could buy dynamite sticks at general store for clearing brush , then cross giant ass mississippi or grow through the south and find out how horrifying white people can be. They'd be serving chocolate battereds fried jap fingers at county fair in a week