Was the US needed to defeat Germany?

[Applesmack]

Do you guys think that the World War 2 would still have been won even if America didn't join in and just sat on their buts providing Lend Lease? If yes, why? If no, why?

REMINDER: Im asking whether the US needed to enter the war for the Allies to win, not if they needed to provide Lend Lease.

Edit: Oops. Spelt entry wrong

[attilavolciak07]

No

[PooFoo]

I think the lend-lease was needed, otherwise no, I don't think so.

[Arto]

It would take even more years. Most of Europe would be Communist by now.

[hellheaven1987]

Well, the fact is that Great Britain alone has not enough manpower to fight Germany, not to mention without Operation Torch it probably would take a lot longer to get rid Axis from North Africa.

[FarKenal]

Well, the fact is that Great Britain alone has not enough manpower to fight Germany, not to mention without Operation Torch it probably would take a lot longer to get rid Axis from North Africa.

But knowing that the Normandy landings are not going to take place, the British/Canadians could have used all the men for Operation Overlord to replace the mixed British-American landings in Morroco and throw the Germans out of Northern Africa who were already in full retreat. And later follow up with the invasion of Siciliy and Italy. The only thing that would not have happened would be D-day, but even the vast majority of Americans believe that all that did (at June 1944 remember) was shorten the war, which had already been decided a year earlier at Kursk.

[gsoxx]

And later follow up with the invasion of Siciliy and Italy. The only thing that would not have happened would be D-day, but even the vast majority of Americans believe that all that did (at June 1944 remember) was shorten the war, which had already been decided a year earlier at Kursk.

I highly doubt that the Britains would start such a daring operation without the impetus of american troops, supplies and morale. Final victory in Africa would also take alot longer (no full retreat here).
With more troops available and without much of the strain on the german economy through the bombing campaigns, it could be argued that Kursk would lose its decisive nature, as the actual german losses were rather slim compared to the other big clashes. Its also doubtful if Hitler would have cancelled to operation at the 'critical point' (v. Manstein) because no landing in Sicily could have occured at the same time in this scenario anyway.

It is also the question what the UK would have seen to be better in this scenario. A soviet Europe ending at the channel or a german one. For the UK there was always the possibility of making peace at any time.

[Pious Agnost]

I highly doubt that the Britains would start such a daring operation without the impetus of american troops, supplies and morale. Final victory in Africa would also take alot longer (no full retreat here).
With more troops available and without much of the strain on the german economy through the bombing campaigns, it could be argued that Kursk would lose its decisive nature, as the actual german losses were rather slim compared to the other big clashes. Its also doubtful if Hitler would have cancelled to operation at the 'critical point' (v. Manstein) because no landing in Sicily could have occured at the same time in this scenario anyway.

It is also the question what the UK would have seen to be better in this scenario. A soviet Europe ending at the channel or a german one. For the UK there was always the possibility of making peace at any time.

Well, Stalin was definitely less crazy than Hitler, he even said to his soldiers that Nazi Germany was a phase, that Germany would be there for longer, and to more-or-less, not kill them all for revenge. Hitler would have genocided more people, even though Stalin wasn't so much better in that area. It's debatable I suppose

[bushbush]

totally, the sheer contribution of US manpower, economic might and military strength were crucial for the final victory of WW2.

[Farnan]

Even if the Soviets could have won, would that have really been a victory for the French and the Allies? Was Stalin much better than Hitler?

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

whats with the out break of 'what if WWII' threads the VV seems to be suffering from...?

[Kamos]

whats with the out break of 'what if WWII' threads the VV seems to be suffering from...?

That is obvious it's called Total Fanatic .

[Kiljan Arslan]

whats with the out break of 'what if WWII' threads the VV seems to be suffering from...?

american haters need to really prove to us that they hate america.

In 1944 they had a chance for that?

considering how much manpower and material hitler had to keep in the west before 1944 I'd say yes.

[André Masséna]

Without American Men and force of Arms?
Doubtful.
Without American Money?
NO

[Manco]

The war would've been won by the Germans, or it would've been a very advantageous cease-fire for them. Could the Germans have hold on to their conquests? That's an entirely different matter.

[gambit]

If the allies had gone without American supplies and manpower, it would have been hell.

Like Maraud said, Hilter wouldn't have been able to hold onto his new empire anyway. He couldn't fight the whole world; he was bound to be beaten or to destroy itself from within.

[Celsius]

Hitler could rule France and Eastern Europe. He might have taken Spain as well

[Otsman]

Hitler could rule France and Eastern Europe. He might have taken Spain as well

he would never have done that

although Spain was neutral in the war, it was onlt because Franco's Spain was not stable enough. and Hitler did send troops to help Franco, and Franco did send some troops to help in the invasion of russia.

[Last Roman]

well, lets just put it this way. All those Germans that were on the western front are now fighting the Russians. your call.

[Nikitn]

well, lets just put it this way. All those Germans that were on the western front are now fighting the Russians. your call.

The Germans fighting at the Western front weren't as effective as their comrades on the eastern front.

And in all of 1943 and 1944 the Soviets were pushing the Germans back. Do you really think those extra German soldiers could possibly have made a decisive impact on the war?