If the Americans never joined the fight against Hitler, would the Alliess still beat the Nazis?

[pericles_plato]

Sorry for misspelling in a rush. Yay poll worked. Hi-5's all around. Thought i'd make this after Soviet One.
Think about it. If the Americans never joined, what would happen?

[Georgy Zhukov]

Red Europe, American supplies would flow to the United Kingdom anyway.

[abbews]

I don't know. Maybe we would have polls like these in the VV then. "What would happen if USA joined the war"

[Exarch]

hitler would've wanted to attack the USA sometime soon after cosolidating europe i reckon
he always ranted on about the jews in america

except this time he might be able to do it with V-2 rockets, jet fighters and a possible nuke

[RomanSoldier9001]

hitler would've wanted to attack the USA sometime soon after cosolidating europe i reckon
he always ranted on about the jews in america

except this time he might be able to do it with V-2 rockets, jet fighters and a possible nuke

Hitler never had intencions to attack America or conquer the all world for that matter too much Captain America Comics friend.

If USA never join the war I think the war would still be won by Allies. I mean Germany still had UK and USSR to deal with. USA would probaly supply UK at least. And what probaly would happen is that USSR would be from Russia Far East to Azores. Europe "Red."
Soviet Union clearly had the power to take out the Germans. Or maybe not . I dont know if USA supplies were so important for whole war effort.Soviets had their own supplies they build a entire new industry in East that supplied the army and that was the main supplier of Weapons,Armor etc not America.
Also the Size of URSS and the size of population would still make USSR a hard target like it show Operation Barborossa had dificults from star even with such "sucess" they had they still find many dificulties that in long run would comptly cripple their army. Pure and Simple Soviets had more men more equipement more land to spare Germans didnt mix that with harsh weather and see the result.
As for UK the Battle of Britain prove that Invading Britain would be sill extremly hard for Germany.
I am the one of those people that thinks the American Contribution to European Theater is overated.

the last moment? so 41-45 is the last moment? I hope you realize that the US was also fighting Japan almost single-handedly as well. I guess the Americans didnt help contribute much, I mean its not like we supplied montgomery with desperately needed fuel, tanks and supplies as well as established a second front to help kick Rommel out of Africa. I guess we had no part in the invasion of sicily, Italy and france either. We must have just rolled a few tanks into paris and took all the credit

Single-handedly?! You forgot about 5,600,000 Chinese ,about 2 Milion Soviets and about 3 to 4 Milion men of British Empire keep the Japanese pretty busy. The Americans contributed to the war no doubt especealy with supplies is often said by schoolars that USA paid the whole allied war effort but sometimes is seen and show in media that America won the war singlehandly is lot far from truth I would say for the tree major power USA was less important in terms of military action. And with USSR and British Empire I doubt that Germany could won in two front war like that.

I always find strange how Axis memebers failed to even conduct a basic communication; when Mussolini invaded Greece Hitler was not awared it until the zero hour. Japan did not informed Germany about its Pacific ambition until last minute too. And the worst is probably Hiter's failure to even mention he was going to make a pact with Stalin in 1939, which shocked Japanese so much that an anti-Germany feeling was rised in that year.

You forgot to notice that Japan when attack USA wanted the surpise factor and informing Germany that would alarm Allied COmmand that had crack the communacations of Axis would surely ruined that.
As for pact with Stalin. Japan had smilar pacts with Soviet Union of non-aggersion dont see how is that supresing.
The Allied lack a lot of communacation aswell if wasnt for geography I even doubt that Alliance would exist Germany was just in middle of great super powers.

[hellheaven1987]

You forgot to notice that Japan when attack USA wanted the surpise factor and informing Germany that would alarm Allied COmmand that had crack the communacations of Axis would surely ruined that.
As for pact with Stalin. Japan had smilar pacts with Soviet Union of non-aggersion dont see how is that supresing.
The Allied lack a lot of communacation aswell if wasnt for geography I even doubt that Alliance would exist Germany was just in middle of great super powers.
[/I]

1. Nonsense; no one says Japan had to inform Germany every bit of their plan, but Japanese did not even provide the information to German that they were thinking attacking Allies.

2. The non-aggressive pact was concluded after Hitler made a pact with Stalin. The pact was actually a shock reaction after Japanese learned Hitler made a pact with Stalin, and Japanese government felt "abandoned" by their German ally, hence Japanese hastly prepared a cease fire for fearing Soviet might attack them.

[RomanSoldier9001]

[QUOTE=hellheaven1987;6424590]

1. Nonsense; no one says Japan had to inform Germany every bit of their plan, but Japanese did not even provide the information to German that they were thinking attacking Allies.

I would agree witht hat but they would had to say they were attacking USA. In this time USA was not even part of Allies.

2. The non-aggressive pact was concluded after Hitler made a pact with Stalin. The pact was actually a shock reaction after Japanese learned Hitler made a pact with Stalin, and Japanese government felt "abandoned" by their German ally, hence Japanese hastly prepared a cease fire for fearing Soviet might attack them.

I wouldnt say that was hardly a sock the Japanese wanted a pact with Soviet Union a long time before the Pact on Europe also the pact with Soviet Union was only sigined in 1941 not in 1939.
They didnt "hastly prepared for a cease-fire".
The pact was more consequence of Soviet-Japenese Border War not of German-Soviet non aggresion pact Japan was preparing to attack USA and expand South to British and other european colonies they wanted neutralaty towards Soviet Union but later when Germany invaded Soviet Union they denouce the pact and soviets aswell but it pretty much remain "alive" until the Invasion of Manchuko.


[QUOTE=scheuch13;6426575]

where are you getting your numbers from? The russians and british did not lose millions of men to the japanese. I will give it to the chinese they did their part and the brits to a smaller degree.

Wikipedia. The Chinese did a BIG part they were figthing the Japanese since 37 they suffer the biggest wave of Japanese Attack not USA. Also they had milions of men and a country hard to conquer that kepp the Japanese pretty busy Tojo always saw the Chinese Theater as first second the Expansion to South and only in Third the Pacific War with USA is said that when he heard of Japanese Defeats and Disasters in Pacific he laugth. True story.
The British or better the Commonwealth did big part on War in East. As I said they had 3 to 4 Milion men on duty during the war. India alone was one of country that contribute the most with 2,500,000 milion men! Australia and New Zeland did their part aswell fighing in same way like Americans.
On South-East Asian Theatre the British Empire fougth singlehandly with Japanese in Singapore they had 85,000 men.And was in this battle were they had the worst military defeat in histroy of UK!
So ya the East Theater was also crucial for British.

we are talking about the war in the pacific not the war in europe. And America did most of the leg work in defeating Japan. I certainly hope your not going to suggest that the american part in the pacific campaign was little.

Is same war World War Two.

And lets not kid ourselves here, Banzai charges are all well and good... but unless you have as many men as the Russians then... it didnt really work out unless you had as many men as the Russains did... which the Japnaneese didn't, for example, on Iwo Jima some captain, led a banzai charge of over 1000 men, and let me assure you, those guys would have been more of a problem in bunkers rather than charging into your guns.

In Pacific War they only used Banzai Charges in end of battle you mention Iwo Jima and is fine example Kuribayashi oposed during the whole battle to use anny Banzai Charge prefer the "Guerrilha Warfare" and is comptly wrigth regarless in end when supplies run low and bulets he himself lead the Banzai Charge.
The Charge was pretty much out of desesperation comparble to the hara kiris. Only the fact that they try to take some of enemey with them out of honor. Sincerelly is probaly better dieng in Banzai Charge than in Starvation in Dark Cave.Staing in caves doesnt mean that you would make a lot of casualtities to the enemy in Iwo Jima Japanese were still in caves after 3 months! Withoud anny food or clean water and most of them died out of starvation ,disase etc. And not of Gun Figthing because americans simply "let them rout" and didnt attack them so in sense the banzai charge makes sense in weird way.
Just note the Banzai Charge had some sucess mainly in Chinese Theater.

And you mentioned the Japanese generals committing suicide because of honor a thing proving America's 'greatness'? I mean, I'm not sure which generals your talking about here, but if they were any good, they could have planned better defending strategies and such later in the war. I mean, don;t get me wrong the Japanese were fearsome opponents, but some of there tactics and traditions were... damaging to there war effort.

This comptly untrue the fact that they lack "defending stategies" just see Okinawa or Iwo Jima was pretty good defensing strategies for me. As for offensive just see Battle of Singapore where 36,000 Japanese Defeated 85,000 Briiths marking the worst military defeat in history of Britain.
As for sucides they quite comom in Japan sadly after Japan surrender is said that thousands killed themselfs then saing their country occupied and defeated mainly hard line military and politicians.

Britain's Prime Minister Winston Churchill called the ignominious fall of Singapore to the Japanese the "worst disaster" and "largest capitulation" in British history.

And you mentioned the nuke, I think the president/generals only authorized the nuke because he thought millions of Americans would die (Might be an exaggeration, don't have the exact quote at this time).

And to prove that nuke actualy worked and to prove to the Soviets to stay way from Japan and that America isnt afraid of using such destrutive weapon.

In my opinion the only main reason the Americans won (There were others as well but this is the main one in my opinion) was that they were a economic powerhouse.... while the Japanese... were not.

In generaly yes but you forget the fact that Japan fougth various opponets aswell not only USA so they had a almost impossible mission to achivie victory. Previous to the invasion of Soviet Union Japan still had milions of men to figth and hard country with milions and milions of volunters from kids to women to men young and old. But when moderated politicians mainly the Emepror saw that Soviet Union migth invaded them and actualy won even with great casualaties(not a probelm for Uncle Stalin) and Japan would suffer greatly with such occupation and together with nukes bombings convince them to surrender but hard lines still try a coupt to stop it.


[QUOTE=pericles_plato;6428543]

After Midway? We won Midway. Cousins stick together like white on rice. Stalingrad wasn't real fighting in American standard, prob Russian standards. I'm talking like Battle of Bulge, Taking St. Loi *However you spell that.* Haven't seen Enemy of the Gates. Not 1 million deaths. Too much for one lousy city. All its importance was, was the fact it was STALINgrad.

Stalingrad was one bloody battles in history you should give the men that fougth there credit was house to house battle with milions of men on both sides. Marked the beggining of German Defeats on Europe tougth generaly I think Kurks was a lot more important. Soviet Union realy did the greatest suport to the Allied War Effort withoud it I doubt that Germany would lost or Japan for that matter Soviets contribute to the east aswell mainly in Sino-Japanese War and with Invasion of Mancuko were in days they crushed the one of best armies of Japan! Japan had 22,780 in Iwo Jima correct?
They had 1,217,000 men, in Manchuko together with more thousands troops of Vassal States.
Wich is more larger? I guess American Standards dont rise as up as "prob Russian standards"

[Gelgoog]

The Chinese did a BIG part they were figthing the Japanese since 37 they suffer the biggest wave of Japanese Attack not USA. Also they had milions of men and a country hard to conquer that kepp the Japanese pretty busy Tojo always saw the Chinese Theater as first second the Expansion to South and only in Third the Pacific War with USA is said that when he heard of Japanese Defeats and Disasters in Pacific he laugth. True story.

Yes i know about the chinese campaign. I draw the line at getting massively annihilated by an enemy and simply being a drain on their resources using guerilla tactics and actively defeating them. Thats like saying that the polish and french contributed greatly to hitlers demise by throwing themselves in front of german bullets depriving them of that ammunition to use later against the brits/americans. While some of the other allies might have defended their territory against japanese expansion and were sometimes successful, the Americans did the majority of actually pushing japan back to its home islands. Were the brits/aussies/chinese helpful in blunting some of japans expansion...yes. But thats about as far as you can go on the subject of defeating japan.

Is same war World War Two.

we were talking about the contributions to defeating japan. And you started talking about the russians and how americans were not needed to defeat hitler. The russian dead at stalingrad had no impact on the pacific theater.

[hellheaven1987]

I wouldnt say that was hardly a sock the Japanese wanted a pact with Soviet Union a long time before the Pact on Europe also the pact with Soviet Union was only sigined in 1941 not in 1939.

1. It was a shock, and I actually have source for that.

2. The pact was starting negotiating around 1939, and signed in 1941.

The British or better the Commonwealth did big part on War in East. As I said they had 3 to 4 Milion men on duty during the war. India alone was one of country that contribute the most with 2,500,000 milion men! Australia and New Zeland did their part aswell fighing in same way like Americans.
On South-East Asian Theatre the British Empire fougth singlehandly with Japanese in Singapore they had 85,000 men.And was in this battle were they had the worst military defeat in histroy of UK!

Well, British... Allies in Burma had even more strange relation than Allies in France...

1941

British: (robbing American aid to Chinese)

Chinese: What the heck?? That is my supply!!

American: Ya, that is the supply I give to Chinese!!! Damned you British!! Return that supply to Chinese!!

British: Hell, it is a waste to give those supply to Chinese; I can use them in better way!!!

Chinese: off, I would quit Allies if you don't return those supplies!!! You guys play around with two millions angry Japanese alone!!

American: Ya, you barbarious British, return those supply to Chinese now!!

British: Fine!! (only return half of original supplies)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1944

American: Hey China, why don't you attack Burma with X force that I equip??

Chinese: Well, X force is not even in full strength yet.

American: I don't care, I don't want to see my effort lose in vain.

Chinese: No way, you are bleeding my men's blood, not yours.

(General Stilwell attacked Burma without noticing Chiang Kai-Shei)

American: Ha, so my expecting campaign finally begins!!!

Chinese: , is Stilwell a barbarian?? Start a campaign using my men without even tell us?? Such a barbarian general would be fired!!

American: No no, I would make him the head of Chinese army instead fire him.

Chinese: Are you ing serious?? You ask a foreign general who lack any basic manner and discipline to lead my armed force?? I demand immediately replacement.

(British suddenly jump in)

British: Ya, I side with Chinese this time; Stilwell is a ing who lacks any proper manner and discipline, I request he been replaced immediately (in the back of note, British wrote "Godsh, only American, who does not know the way of gentlemen, that has such a undiscipline general").

American: Fine, I would fire him then...

In Pacific War they only used Banzai Charges in end of battle you mention Iwo Jima and is fine example Kuribayashi oposed during the whole battle to use anny Banzai Charge prefer the "Guerrilha Warfare" and is comptly wrigth regarless in end when supplies run low and bulets he himself lead the Banzai Charge.
The Charge was pretty much out of desesperation comparble to the hara kiris. Only the fact that they try to take some of enemey with them out of honor. Sincerelly is probaly better dieng in Banzai Charge than in Starvation in Dark Cave.Staing in caves doesnt mean that you would make a lot of casualtities to the enemy in Iwo Jima Japanese were still in caves after 3 months! Withoud anny food or clean water and most of them died out of starvation ,disase etc. And not of Gun Figthing because americans simply "let them rout" and didnt attack them so in sense the banzai charge makes sense in weird way.
Just note the Banzai Charge had some sucess mainly in Chinese Theater.

I highly believe Banzai Charge was something Chinese forced Japanese to adopt. A detailed study of Second Sino-Japanese War suggests that most battles were fought in bayonet charge, mostly Chinese charged first (due to lack of ammo; in 1941 the average rifle ammo for each soldier was six rounds, including parctice). It seems that due to this constant close-quarter combat Japanese also adopted a more aggressive bayonet assault, which appeared in Malaya campaign and later on, Burma.

[Gelgoog]

Single-handedly?! You forgot about 5,600,000 Chinese ,about 2 Milion Soviets and about 3 to 4 Milion men of British Empire keep the Japanese pretty busy.

where are you getting your numbers from? The russians and british did not lose millions of men to the japanese. I will give it to the chinese they did their part and the brits to a smaller degree.

The Americans contributed to the war no doubt especealy with supplies is often said by schoolars that USA paid the whole allied war effort but sometimes is seen and show in media that America won the war singlehandly is lot far from truth I would say for the tree major power USA was less important in terms of military action. And with USSR and British Empire I doubt that Germany could won in two front war like that.

we are talking about the war in the pacific not the war in europe. And America did most of the leg work in defeating Japan. I certainly hope your not going to suggest that the american part in the pacific campaign was little.

[hellheaven1987]

we are talking about the war in the pacific not the war in europe. And America did most of the leg work in defeating Japan. I certainly hope your not going to suggest that the american part in the pacific campaign was little.

Well, American did a good job on air and sea, but on land Chinese was far more important than any Allies...

[Gelgoog]

Well, American did a good job on air and sea, but on land Chinese was far more important than any Allies...

Ah so, completely pushing japan off its gained territory and back to its homeland...that was just what exactly?



just off for a stroll on the beach I guess.

some of the most vicious fighting in the war occured in the pacific. The only other areas probably comparable would be stalingrad and leningrad.

[RomanSoldier9001]

hitler would've wanted to attack the USA sometime soon after cosolidating europe i reckon
he always ranted on about the jews in america

except this time he might be able to do it with V-2 rockets, jet fighters and a possible nuke

He could ranted all he want because there would be no invasion the germans didnt invade Britain you think they would have the power to invade a super power like USA miles and miles from their home country?
Short answer...
NOOOOO.

Yes allies would "beat the nazis" (love the cliché vocabulary) but probaly most of europe would be communist occupied by Soviets I guess we didnt want that do we? But since a lot of people find them liberators and heroes or at least better than those "damm nazis" it would be for greater good.

[Mr. Scott]

hitler would've wanted to attack the USA sometime soon after cosolidating europe i reckon
he always ranted on about the jews in america

except this time he might be able to do it with V-2 rockets, jet fighters and a possible nuke

Well, you'd probably end up with a cold war situation. Germany wouldn't have the capability to invade the US. Its just too far away and they didn't have a big enough or strong enough navy to do so. However, you would have Nazi Europe and Japan against the American coalition.

Basically, it would result in a world war, where virtually the entire world would be the battlefield, not just islands and Europe. Us would probably try to get latin america to side with them and would scramble to get any allies it could.

Not good, no telling who would win in that situation.

now this is assuming that the US did not give any supplies to britain or Russia.

[Ahlerich]

the only way i can see america not fighting affecting the war significantly would be if america as well offered germany some cash and carry deal or ressources.
even then or even if the usa would deliver these trading ressources so they could not be intercepted (as the british would not be able to attack the usa without dragging them into the war) i think its very questionable if the nazis could defeat russia

[Stark of Winterfell]

I voted yes, assuming that the US still supplies Great Britain and/or Russia. Chances are that there would not have been a D-day or as rapid advance of the Allies into western North Africa and Italy, and that there would have been more German troops freed up to fight Russia. Would there have been enough freed up to beat Russia? Probably not.

[Stavroforos]

I don't think so.

[Tiwaz]

War would have dragged on few more years and at the end USSR would have spanned from Bering straight to English channel.

And with all the tech advancements USSR would have been well poised to win Cold war, with USA seriously hurt by their lack of access to German tech.

[Caelius]

Soviet Post-War propaganda and revisionism winning once again, tis truly sad.

To quote Marshal Zhukov:
"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and
economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from
the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that
respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the
war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a
serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the
quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic],
we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable
degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary
for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of
American deliveries."

"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny
that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have
formed our reserves and could not have continued the war . . . we had no
explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans
actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet
steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our
production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it
seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."

The USSR didn't have the resources to defeat Germany by itself, to say the least of this talk of turning Europe Communist Red.

Find a globe or a map people, then calculate the distance from Siberia to....oh let's say....Paris.

Lend Lease provided the following:
"80% of all canned meat.
92% of all railroad locomotives, rolling stock and rails.
57% of all aviation fuel.
53% of all explosives.
74% of all truck transport.
88% of all radio equipment.
53% of all copper.
56% of all aluminum.
60+% of all automotive fuel.
74% of all vehicle tires.
12% of all armored vehicles.
14% of all combat aircraft.
The list includes a high percentage of the high grade steel, communications
cable, canned foods of all types, medical supplies, and virtually every modern
machine tool used by Soviet industry. Not to mention the "know-how required to
use and maintain this equipment."

This is historical Fact.

The usual counter-argument to this by the Soviet revisionism school is that those contributions are irrelevant, since LL only kicked in well after the Germans had been defeated at Stalingrad and Kursk, which is true.

What they tend to go silent on is the fact that it was the support of LL that allowed the Soviets to continue building upon the gains those victories gave them, and have the strategic capability to launch consistent offensives that had the Red Army in Berlin by mid-1945, as opposed to....1947.

This will hopefully be my only post here, since these threads are almost never intelligent or civil, and usually devolve into nationalist dickwaving after a page or so by posters who can't realize or accept that WWII couldn't have been won if any one of the "Big Three" Allied Powers is removed from the equation.

-Remove the UK and the Allies lose or sue for peace.
-Remove the USSR and the Allies lose or sue for peace.
-Remove the USA and the Allies lose or sue for peace.

They were a strategic tripod, and tripods fall over if you remove one of their legs.

[Ahlerich]

Soviet Post-War propaganda and revisionism winning once again, tis truly sad.

To quote Marshal Zhukov:
"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and
economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from
the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that
respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the
war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a
serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the
quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic],
we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable
degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary
for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of
American deliveries."

"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny
that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have
formed our reserves and could not have continued the war . . . we had no
explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans
actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet
steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our
production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it
seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."

The USSR didn't have the resources to defeat Germany by itself, to say the least of this talk of turning Europe Communist Red.

Find a globe or a map people, then calculate the distance from Siberia to....oh let's say....Paris.

Lend Lease provided the following:
"80% of all canned meat.
92% of all railroad locomotives, rolling stock and rails.
57% of all aviation fuel.
53% of all explosives.
74% of all truck transport.
88% of all radio equipment.
53% of all copper.
56% of all aluminum.
60+% of all automotive fuel.
74% of all vehicle tires.
12% of all armored vehicles.
14% of all combat aircraft.
The list includes a high percentage of the high grade steel, communications
cable, canned foods of all types, medical supplies, and virtually every modern
machine tool used by Soviet industry. Not to mention the "know-how required to
use and maintain this equipment."

This is historical Fact.

The usual counter-argument to this by the Soviet revisionism school is that those contributions are irrelevant, since LL only kicked in well after the Germans had been defeated at Stalingrad and Kursk, which is true.

What they tend to go silent on is the fact that it was the support of LL that allowed the Soviets to continue building upon the gains those victories gave them, and have the strategic capability to launch consistent offensives that had the Red Army in Berlin by mid-1945, as opposed to....1947.

This will hopefully be my only post here, since these threads are almost never intelligent or civil, and usually devolve into nationalist dickwaving after a page or so by posters who can't realize or accept that WWII couldn't have been won if any one of the "Big Three" Allied Powers is removed from the equation.

-Remove the UK and the Allies lose or sue for peace.
-Remove the USSR and the Allies lose or sue for peace.
-Remove the USA and the Allies lose or sue for peace.

They were a strategic tripod, and tripods fall over if you remove one of their legs.

soviet union was weak hardwarewise in the 30 and at the beginning of operation barbarossa (which is why hitler attacked so early after failing in bof to begin with. once the war machinery was running the soviets picked up quickly. well if germany would have made it to the urals much quicker the soviets might be screwed.