NationStates Jolt Archive

The USA entered the war in 1941. To cut a long story short, the Allies won.

BUT what I want to ask you is, what do you think would have happened had America remained nuetral, or only focused on the War in Asia?

This thread is because I'm a tad tired of some Americans thinking (when hearing a Europhile being anti-american), "Yeah, well if it wasn't for us, you'd be saying that in German." (Unless they actually ARE speaking German. Which would be ever so slightly ironic....)

So, lets find out what NS thinks Europe would have been like if the USA DIDN'T enter.

**Plus, some Americans think if the USA hadn't entered the war, Germany would take over Europe. I like to think if Britain had sided with the Nazis, the USA national language would be German. Lets hear it for the Brits!**

Then Malta would have won the war.

Your nation is also usually extremely presumptuous in thinking that it alone won the war, when the UK and the USSR (despite my antipathy for it) entered the War. Heck, had the US not entered WW 1, Germany might have won, let alone WW 2.

I doubt that Britain would have been invaded, but the USSR would have eventually smashed its way through Europe. The Nazis would have eventually been defeated, by the USSR in Europe and by Britain in North Africa, but Western Europe may well have ended up under the thumb of the communists.

Well, it could've told the allies fighting in Europe that it could take care of Japan and allow the allies to focus more of their resources on the Nazi threat, thereby eliminating the need for American command in Normandy.

It could've simply focused on Japan and then with the allies, once Japan and Germany were driven back, turn their collective attention to motherland Russia.

So, given that the US is just fighting on the one front and likewise with the other allies, I think the war would've been a little longer, but, the same result may have come out of it, since they were each focusing on the same core objective.

There might've been greater casualties in the Asian Theatre due to the lengthen time for the war.

I'd say Britain and the other Allied nations would have done some serious damage in and around Europe, no?

Your nation is also usually extremely presumptuous in thinking that it alone won the war, when the UK and the USSR (despite my antipathy for it) entered the War. Heck, had the US not entered WW 1, Germany might have one, let alone WW 2.

I doubt that Germany really had ANY hope of winning World War 1... America just entered to a) getting more money from Britain through trade and b) have a seat at the peace talks, America was getting lonely :P.


The USSR also would have won the War against Germany through numbers alone, even if the West left it fighting by itself for awhile so it would be weaker in the resulting Cold War.

I will add an additional precondition. What if the US had never gained the nuclear technologies? Would it ever have achieved victory against Japan?

I doubt that Germany really had ANY hope of winning World War 1... America just entered to a) getting more money from Britain through trade and b) have a seat at the peace talks, America was getting lonely :P.
No. Germany lost WW I directly because of the US pouring in 2 million fresh troops into the offensive. Before that it was on the verge of victory. It even got Russia to capitulate. Germany may not have won, but it would definitely not have lost. I think treaties would be written up so as to compromise. Germany and Austro-Hungary would be the dominant European forces though, and perhaps the de facto global superpowers, had this been so.

The USSR also would have won the War against Germany through numbers alone, even if the West left it fighting by itself for awhile so it would be weaker in the resulting Cold War.
Hardly. The USSR had suffered immense casualties at Germany's hand, even though it entered at a later stage of the war. Had Germany focused all its efforts on the USSR, I don't think the latter would've won.

The USA entered the war in 1941. To cut a long story short, the Allies won.

BUT what I want to ask you is, what do you think would have happened had America remained nuetral, or only focused on the War in Asia?

This thread is because I'm a tad tired of some Americans thinking (when hearing a Europhile being anti-american), "Yeah, well if it wasn't for us, you'd be saying that in German." (Unless they actually ARE speaking German. Which would be ever so slightly ironic....)

So, lets find out what NS thinks Europe would have been like if the USA DIDN'T enter.

**Plus, some Americans think if the USA hadn't entered the war, Germany would take over Europe. I like to think if Britain had sided with the Nazis, the USA national language would be German. Lets hear it for the Brits!**

No...actually, I think if we didn`t enter the war Germany would have outpowered everyone. This includes us concidering that Germany had plans on an American invasion. If we didn`t go to Germany our tech would have been weak compared to the germans and thus when they come to us we would have had one hell of a time fighting back. To cut this short...the Axis would have won if we didn`t go in (But I cant say anything about Italy cause I dont know if they would have still taken their leader down) But Britain might not have been able to fight back.

"Europa Maximastrange", someone who uses the word presumptuous and yet cannot spell the word WON not ONE....

I doubt that Britain would have been invaded, but the USSR would have eventually smashed its way through Europe. The Nazis would have eventually been defeated, by the USSR in Europe and by Britain in North Africa, but Western Europe may well have ended up under the thumb of the communists.

On the contrary, Nazi Germany's primary reason for failure was the fact that it had to engage on a 2 front war. Had the US not entered the war, Britian and France would not have had the manpower for a counter attack, and Germany could continue (up until that point) its successful assult on Russia. And with its main force against the Soviet Union, despite failures in Stalingrad, it would have been able to eventually win, or at the very least establish a stalemate.

This of course until Japan would invade from the west as it planed to (in conjunction with its invasion of Manuchria)

I will add an additional precondition. What if the US had never gained the nuclear technologies? Would it ever have achieved victory against Japan?
Yes for a simple reason.

Japan is physically small and the US had a great level of manufacturing capability, due to homefront mobilisation during this time. They could've used conventional bombs to drive Japan back to the dark ages - turn it into Afghanistan! :D Nothin' but rubble and terrorists. ;)

I will add an additional precondition. What if the US had never gained the nuclear technologies? Would it ever have achieved victory against Japan?

Yeah, the USSR had promised to invade North Japan three months after it had deafted the Nazis, and was on the point of doing it before the Bomb. An other reason the USA dropped the bomb was to stop the USSR having a foothold on Japan.

I figure if the USSR did invade the North, it would be like Germany during the Cold War, but maybe without the big wall :P.

Yes for a simple reason.

Japan is physically small and the US had a great level of manufacturing capability, due to homefront mobilisation during this time. They could've used conventional bombs to drive Japan back to the dark ages - turn it into Afghanistan! :D Nothin' but rubble and terrorists. ;)
Now, convert these assumptions into actual proof.

Yeah, the USSR had promised to invade North Japan three months after it had deafted the Nazis, and was on the point of doing it before the Bomb. An other reason the USA dropped the bomb was to stop the USSR having a foothold on Japan.

I figure if the USSR did invade the North, it would be like Germany during the Cold War, but maybe without the big wall :P.
This is presuming that the USSR defeated Nazi Germany. Who is to say it would? Who is to even say that had it defeated Germany, it would be in any condition to fight Japan?

The USA entered the war in 1941. To cut a long story short, the Allies won.

BUT what I want to ask you is, what do you think would have happened had America remained nuetral, or only focused on the War in Asia?

Well, that was the U.S.'s intent- to remain neutral in Europe. (although sending all those arms, destroyers, etc and letting U.S. pilots volunteer to fly for the UK doesn't exactly qualify as being 'neutral') However, after declaring war on Japan, Germany declared war on the U.S., so...

This thread is because I'm a tad tired of some Americans thinking (when hearing a Europhile being anti-american), "Yeah, well if it wasn't for us, you'd be saying that in German." (Unless they actually ARE speaking German. Which would be ever so slightly ironic....)

Probably not German, but Russian in my opinion...

So, lets find out what NS thinks Europe would have been like if the USA DIDN'T enter.

Germany would have held out longer, developed the bomb, turned London into an uninhabitable microwave, but eventually been overrun by Soviet forces. Of course, if the U.S. hadn't entered the war at all, The USSR would have had Japan on the other end to contend with, so I think that might have saved Germany by splitting the Russian forces.

I like to think if Britain had sided with the Nazis, the USA national language would be German. Lets hear it for the Brits!**

Um, no.

No...actually, I think if we didn`t enter the war Germany would have outpowered everyone. This includes us concidering that Germany had plans on an American invasion. If we didn`t go to Germany our tech would have been weak compared to the germans and thus when they come to us we would have had one hell of a time fighting back. To cut this short...the Axis would have won if we didn`t go in (But I cant say anything about Italy cause I dont know if they would have still taken their leader down) But Britain might not have been able to fight back.

Really... and where did you hear about this information that Germany had plans on an American invasion ? In fact Hilter held both Britian and the United States in high reguard because of their military might... do not forget he had a facisit mindset (survival of the fittest) and he awed at great power. This is why Hitler took steps to secure peace with Britian. Even after war broke out, correspondence between German and British officals were exchanged as Germany wanted to maintain the peace whlie invading poland.

Hitlers plan was always focused against the Soviet Union, who he saw as inferior, and planed to enslave after its conquest.

In most cases in the last few hundred years, the aggressor in war (ie. the one who started it) has lost the war. (Heed this George W.)

Really... and where did you hear about this information that Germany had plans on an American invasion ? In fact Hilter held both Britian and the United States in high reguard because of their military might... do not forget he had a facisit mindset (survival of the fittest) and he awed at great power. This is why Hitler took steps to secure peace with Britian. Even after war broke out, correspondence between German and British officals were exchanged as Germany wanted to maintain the peace whlie invading poland.

Hitlers plan was always focused against the Soviet Union, who he saw as inferior, and planed to enslave after its conquest.
Hitled had plans against the US after it turned against him. Read the Plot against America. He also sent a submarine envoy against the US, which was infiltrated though due to German spies changing sides. Much of Germany's losses in WW II were due to betrayal from within.

No. Germany lost WW I directly because of the US pouring in 2 million fresh troops into the offensive. Before that it was on the verge of victory. It even got Russia to capitulate. Germany may not have won, but it would definitely not have lost. I think treaties would be written up so as to compromise. Germany and Austro-Hungary would be the dominant European forces though, and perhaps the de facto global superpowers, had this been so.


Hardly. The USSR had suffered immense casualties at Germany's hand, even though it entered at a later stage of the war. Had Germany focused all its efforts on the USSR, I don't think the latter would've won.

Doubtful, in 1918 the Germans were doing grand on the front, but they were VASTLY running out of food stores. And an army marches on it's stomach... So it wouldn't have been to long before they had to surrender. Plus, your completely forgetting the new fangled USSR as a major player in world affairs.

America though was living the good life through both wars, thanks to the glory of Loans to democracies for defending freedom!

Doubtful, in 1918 the Germans were doing grand on the front, but they were VASTLY running out of food stores. And an army marches on it's stomach... So it wouldn't have been to long before they had to surrender. Plus, your completely forgetting the new fangled USSR as a major player in world affairs.
Before Stalin reformed it? It was nothing. It was economically crippled. So essentially, no. I think it would've ended in a continental compromise, like I said. Perhaps Germany would've turned Russia into its ally. ;)

America though was living the good life through both wars, thanks to the glory of Loans to democracies for defending freedom!
Freedom? Hah. Be honest. Self-interest is your nation's motive. I am angry that you intervened in WW 1. I lament the fall of Austro-Hungary. Either way, what's done is done.

Um, no.

Well, think about it, Nazi and Brit troops on the Northern Border of America through Canada.

If America never entered into the European theatre of WWII Western Europe would have been overrun by the Nazis and Eventually captured by the Soviets and put under a communist rule. That is the only logical thing that could have happened.

Freedom? Hah. Be honest. Self-interest is your nation's motive. I am angry that you intervened in WW 1. I lament the fall of Austro-Hungary. Either way, what's done is done.

I was speaking of World War 2 at the end of that.

But i dont know why you say my nation. Im irish. We rebelled during WW1 (and failed miserably). But I think your great overestimating America's influnce in the world pre-1945, which makes sense because you've never lived a world not dominated by America (or the USSR).

Plus, I mean after Stalin's Reforms

Before Stalin reformed it? It was nothing. It was economically crippled. So essentially, no. I think it would've ended in a continental compromise, like I said. Perhaps Germany would've turned Russia into its ally. ;)


Freedom? Hah. Be honest. Self-interest is your nation's motive. I am angry that you intervened in WW 1. I lament the fall of Austro-Hungary. Either way, what's done is done.


Your angry that some already dead people went into europe to fight in WWI. Yeah you tell them that. lol

If America never entered into the European theatre of WWII Western Europe would have been overrun by the Nazis and Eventually captured by the Soviets and put under a communist rule. That is the only logical thing that could have happened.
Why are you so sure of the USSR's victory? If Germany focused its efforts on Britain and conquered it, it would have control over the Empire. The USSR only entered in 1941. Assuming the US does not enter, why would the USSR win? The combined power of Japan and the Nazi ruled German empire would be formidable.

I was speaking of World War 2 at the end of that.

But i dont know why you say my nation. Im irish. We rebelled during WW1 (and failed miserably). But I think your great overestimating America's influnce in the world pre-1945, which makes sense because you've never lived a world not dominated by America (or the USSR).

Plus, I mean after Stalin's Reforms
No, I know how little America meant in the pre-1945 world. Victory in WW 2 ultimately crowned it the de facto world superpower.

Even after Stalin's reforms by the way, Germany would still be a fierce force to be reckoned with. If it conquered the Empire, like I said, the USSR would be doubly wary before attempting any aggressions against it.

Well, think about it, Nazi and Brit troops on the Northern Border of America through Canada.

The key words being "Brit troops". If the UK were in the Axis, English would still have been a viable language- thus the U.S. would never have to speak German, regardless of any outcome.

If America never entered into the European theatre of WWII Western Europe would have been overrun by the Nazis and Eventually captured by the Soviets and put under a communist rule. That is the only logical thing that could have happened.

I agree with most of what you say, but i doubt he'd have invaded Britain, he respected "That Gallant Little Island" as he called it, for going out and making an Empire. Plus, your forgetting how strong their morale was.

AND he wouldnt have taken over Ireland- he said in his Memos "I shall never invade Ireland. They bastards are too terriorial."

But a Soviet Mainland? Likely. Still, I'm right in my original point that American intervention wasn't crucial to win the war for the Allies.

Why are you so sure of the USSR's victory? If Germany focused its efforts on Britain and conquered it, it would have control over the Empire. The USSR only entered in 1941. Assuming the US does not enter, why would the USSR win? The combined power of Japan and the Nazi ruled German empire would be formidable.

The US and China were the main forces fighting Japan. The USSR at the time could throw million of people into the line of fire making that a huge advantage.

Your angry that some already dead people went into europe to fight in WWI. Yeah you tell them that. lol
What are you on about? I meant over the fact that you intervened. Especially your meddlesome President Wilson. Europe would be so different today if you hadn't come in. Too bad Germany couldn't reason that the US should have been left alone.

I suspect that if the Americans helped materially, then the UK and the USSR could have defeated Germany. Without that material support, the UK couldnt have had any hope of invading. The USSR might have been able to defeat Germany (and they did do most of the work in the European Theatre).

If they hadnt provided material support... then Britain, and possible even the USSR might have collapsed.

But actual military support I dont think was so vital.

It would have certainly taken much longer though. And most of Europe would have been under the influence of the USSR. And that wouldnt have been good. So America joining the war was a good thing.

IN World War 1 though, the Allies could have beaten the Germans without the military aid of the US. Again, it probably sped it up though, as the German 1918 offensive was an attempt to win the war before the Americans arrived in any great numbers, and it pretty much spent what was left of German reserves (like the Battle of the Bulge did in 1944). If America wasnt a threat, that would have happened, and Germany would have had to been starved into submission (though she was already quite close to that), or militarily defeated while those reserves still existed. It may have lasted a few more months, and maybe even a year... but not much longer than that. Germany has lost WW1 by the time the Americans arrived in any appreciable numbers.

Actually you could say the same about WW2, but they sped it up far more than they did WW1, probably shaving years off any eventual victory for the Allies.

The US and China were the main forces fighting Japan. The USSR at the time could throw million of people into the line of fire making that a huge advantage.
Victory is not automatic though. It would be a huge battle. Either side could've emerged victorious.

I agree with most of what you say, but i doubt he'd have invaded Britain, he respected "That Gallant Little Island" as he called it, for going out and making an Empire. Plus, your forgetting how strong their morale was.

AND he wouldnt have taken over Ireland- he said in his Memos "I shall never invade Ireland. They bastards are too terriorial."

But a Soviet Mainland? Likely. Still, I'm right in my original point that American intervention wasn't crucial to win the war for the Allies.

They wouldn't have lasted forever.

No, I know how little America meant in the pre-1945 world. Victory in WW 2 ultimately crowned it the de facto world superpower.

Even after Stalin's reforms by the way, Germany would still be a fierce force to be reckoned with. If it conquered the Empire, like I said, the USSR would be doubly wary before attempting any aggressions against it.

But, Germany wouldn't have conquered the Empire. Do you really think the French would last more than a year without at least ONE revolution? Germany would have far too many Rebellions to quel to have any real colonial ambitions.

But, Germany reaching the UK after 1918 is impossible, so your point is invalid.

What are you on about? I meant over the fact that you intervened. Especially your meddlesome President Wilson. Europe would be so different today if you hadn't come in. Too bad Germany couldn't reason that the US should have been left alone.


President Wilson was one of our greatest Presidents he promised that he would keep us out of war but when you are pushed too hard you push back. Natural human reaction.

But, Germany wouldn't have conquered the Empire. Do you really think the French would last more than a year without at least ONE revolution? Germany would have far too many Rebellions to quel to have any real colonial ambitions.

But, Germany reaching the UK after 1918 is impossible, so your point is invalid.
Germany's military power at the time of 1939 was in exact balance with that of the Empire's. It is hardly invalid. Germany had the potential to focus its power on the UK. The USSR was in alliance with it, and the US is presumed not to aid the UK. Hence, the hypothesis stands. Britain would've either warred with Germany, and potentially lost, or aligned with it.

As for France, please. :rolleyes:

Now, convert these assumptions into actual proof.

Alright, go here (http://www.wikipedia.com) and search for America World War Two. ;)

No. Germany lost WW I directly because of the US pouring in 2 million fresh troops into the offensive. Before that it was on the verge of victory. It even got Russia to capitulate. Germany may not have won, but it would definitely not have lost. I think treaties would be written up so as to compromise. Germany and Austro-Hungary would be the dominant European forces though, and perhaps the de facto global superpowers, had this been so.

The U.S. forces were fresh troops, but did little more than shift morale against the Germans in WWI. It was the U.S. supplies that helped more than the troops- suddenly British, French, and the new American troops are having full bellies, while the German soldiers are surviving on stale cigarettes.

The reason Germany 'lost' was because of the Ludendorf offensive. Logistically, Germany was spent. If they stayed put, dug in, and conserved their resources, they could have legitimately come to the bargaining table with some respect. Attrition had done it's toll on all of Europe, and had Germany not attempted a last offensive, a more equitable peace treaty could have been established. But by throwing a last ditch attack in there, they exposed the desperate state of the army, the infrastructure, and their economy- which left the Germans NO room to negotiate. It was take what you had coming or nothing.

Why are you so sure of the USSR's victory? If Germany focused its efforts on Britain and conquered it, it would have control over the Empire.

Erm... no it wouldnt. Canada, South Africa, India, Australia etc of the Commenwealth and Empire wouldnt not have sided with the Nazis just because Britain had been invaded. In fact, the plan was, that if the Germans invaded, the government would skeddadle of to Canada, and continue the war from there.

Of course, and invasion would have been hard without Britain as a staging post, and it would have been universally shite for Britain, but hey.


The USSR only entered in 1941. Assuming the US does not enter, why would the USSR win? The combined power of Japan and the Nazi ruled German empire would be formidable.

Japan were not keen to attack the USSR. IN fact, whenever they had fought the USSR (lots of minor incidents in the 30s), they got their arses whipped. They only fought the USSR during WW2 when the USSR attacked them in 1945. They were at peace with them before.

And I would argue, that pretty much by the time of the entrance of America into the war, Germany's fate had been almost sealed. They may have been able to pull something off in 1942, but I am not so sure, and any later, no chance, any success would have been a set back, no more.

Germany's military power at the time of 1939 was in exact balance with that of the Empire's. It is hardly invalid. Germany had the potential to focus its power on the UK. The USSR was in alliance with it, and the US is presumed not to aid the UK. Hence, the hypothesis stands.

Ahhh, I thought we we're still talking about 1918. And i repeat, and if Hitler DID invade Britain, its unlikely he'd have stayed there very long. And him taking over Canada, India AND Australia IS ridiculous. He could divide his troops that much.

Why are you so sure of the USSR's victory? If Germany focused its efforts on Britain and conquered it, it would have control over the Empire. The USSR only entered in 1941. Assuming the US does not enter, why would the USSR win? The combined power of Japan and the Nazi ruled German empire would be formidable.

Germany did focus its efforts on Britain until 1941. The result was the Blitz. The reason why they only attacked from the air was because the Royal Navy was too strong for the Germans to launch an invasion. British industry and morale had to be crippled before an invasion could be successful, and the only way that they could do that was from the air. In 1941 the bombing of Britain was almost completely stopped. The Germans realised that the invasion of Britain was a lost cause, and decided to concentrate on Russia. Even before the US entered the war, it was not possible for Germany to topple Britain.

Meanwhile, on the Eastern Front, the Germans were also unable to strike a decisive blow. Although they did make advances, the Russian numbers, combined with a complete lack of preparation by the Germans for the Russian winter, made the failure of Operation Barbarossa inevitable.

Although Japan could have made matters worse for the Russians by invading from the East, there is no reason to see why their actions would have been any different had the US not got involved in Europe. Japan concentrated on South-East Asia rather than Eastern Russia. It is also important to remember that Japan struck the first blow against America. The USA would have been dragged in to combat against Japan anyway. Even if Hitler hadn't declared war on the USA after Japan did, the Japanese would have been too tied up fighting the USA to do anything about the USSR.

Conclusion: Victory for the USSR.

Ahhh, I thought we we're still talking about 1918. And i repeat, and if Hitler DID invade Britain, its unlikely he'd have stayed there very long. And him taking over Canada, India AND Australia IS ridiculous. He could divide his troops that much.
Well, he would have access to Britain's immense wealth in any case.

South Africa had Nazi sympathies, by the way. It might've been persuaded to join.

In any case, I have studies to get to. I might get back to this later, if it hasn't exploded out of all proportions, as these threads tend to. :)

Alright, go here (http://www.wikipedia.com) and search for America World War Two. ;)


lol lol lol lol lol lol lol Dude thats funny. You used wikipedia lol. Youy can't trust wikipedia because anyone can change it lol dedede

lol lol lol lol lol lol lol Dude thats funny. You used wikipedia lol. Youy can't trust wikipedia because anyone can change it lol dedede

You gotta point there, but i just wanted to annoy your man Europa.

oh lol well I know Im having a good time.

Well, he would have access to Britain's immense wealth in any case.

How? The government would have probably skedadled with any gold reserves etc, and industry would have been shattered by the war, and probably by deliberate destruction on both sides. Germany would have expended huge resources to gain very little (if they could have succeded at all, which looked unlikely when you really look at it), would have to garrison Britain, and then take on Russia, probably later than it already did, and even the time they had orginlally wasnt enough to destroy Russia in one blow, which is pretty much the only way to do it.

Had the U.S. not gotten directly involved in Eurpoe during WWII, then I think Germany would have held mainland Europe, and probably large portions of Russia and other Soviet States, such as Ukraine. I serously doubt that they would have pushed through to Siberia. What Hitler wanted was Ukraine, Western Russia, and the Caucasas. Russia would not have had a chance without direct help from U.S. manufacturing (Soviet production always had problems), and more importantly, direct military pressure from the U.S. and Britain's support on other fronts (North Africa, France, and Italy). Stalin would have been doomed.

As far as the U.K.'s fate, they did not have the man-power nor the industrial production to invade 'fortress Eurpope' on their own. The French resistance was not setup for nor able to hold territory, though they were quite helpful in disruption leading up to the Normandy invasion. Germany would have eventually forced the U.K. to capitulate or would have invaded once things were firmed up on the Easter front. Don't forget, Germany did have a plan to invade England, and almost carried it out (Operation Sea Lion).

This is not to say that the U.S. could have done all the heavy lifting without any help. If Russia was not fighting for its existance on the Eastern front, the U.S. would not have been able to get a foothold on the mainland. England was crucial in routing the German navy from the north sea, providing a launching point for the Normandy invasion, and near constant bombing from the RAF along with the U.S. airforce. The soldiers that the British, Canadians, and Polish fielded did more than just stand around and whistle, even though they were not the majority of the forces.

Pacific Theater and WWI are for a different thread.

all you just saidd.

I just don't think Hitler could have completely conquered the UK, but I doubt the UK would have been able to invade Europe. Probably a Stalemate for awhile, until one revolution shook the Nazi System a bit, and making the USSR and Brits keen to attack. Would have been alot longer, but we would have still won.

If the USA had not been supplying Britain with resources, Hitler would have crushed them, how that would have affected the USSR's progress from the Eastern Front I don't know.

Really... and where did you hear about this information that Germany had plans on an American invasion ? In fact Hilter held both Britian and the United States in high reguard because of their military might... do not forget he had a facisit mindset (survival of the fittest) and he awed at great power. This is why Hitler took steps to secure peace with Britian. Even after war broke out, correspondence between German and British officals were exchanged as Germany wanted to maintain the peace whlie invading poland.

Hitlers plan was always focused against the Soviet Union, who he saw as inferior, and planed to enslave after its conquest.

Actually, Hitler had long-term plans to destroy both Britain and the United States. In both Mein Kampf and it's sequel, released during the war, Hitler raged against the United States, arguing that it was 'A decayed country...My feelings against Americanism are feelings of hatred and deep repugnance..."* Not only did he hate the US for its influence of Negroes and Jews, as he put it, but the two books illustrated plans for the eventual invasion of the United States - plans edited out of a sanitised copy released to the United States in the late 1930's. Hitler also commisioned the creation of the 'Amerika Bomber', a long-range bomber capable of reaching New York and Washington and dropping a significant payload.

As for Britain, although Hitler did indeed declare his admiration for the United Kingdom, his willingness to cooperate with them extended only so far. When it became clear that Churchill could not be removed internally via British politics, and that Britain was not on the verge of surrendering, he ranted against Churchill and the British people. It was only the victory in the air over Southern England by the RAF, the inability to tackle the Royal Navy, and the pressing need to transfer troops eastwards to the Russian border that stopped Sealion from occuring. Whilst messages were transferred between Britain and German officials, this stopped once Churchill came to power - in official channels, at least.

* Franklin And Winston, P. 135, Meacham, Granta Books, 2003

I doubt that Germany really had ANY hope of winning World War 1... America just entered to a) getting more money from Britain through trade and b) have a seat at the peace talks, America was getting lonely :P.
Hah, very funny. The US played an important role in halting the final German push on Paris during the second world war. American Army and Marine units were vital in blunting the German advance at Belleau Wood, and American naval units were very important in decreasing the U-Boat threat to allied shipping.

The USSR also would have won the War against Germany through numbers alone, even if the West left it fighting by itself for awhile so it would be weaker in the resulting Cold War.
Once again I will cite Marshall Zhukov who testified that without the lend-lease aid, oil, metal, trucks, airplanes and various other weapons from the US, the USSR would have collapsed in the winter of 1942. American trucks were key in moving the Soviet military, and if they had been lacking, there is little doubt the Nazis would have found the Soviet forces that stopped them outside of Moscow in their way, they probably would have rolled into the city and broken the USSR.

Furthermore, the US and UK forced the Germans to divert crack armored units to other fronts from the East, even before the invasion of Normandy.

Had the U.S. not gotten directly involved in Eurpoe during WWII, then I think Germany would have held mainland Europe, and probably large portions of Russia and other Soviet States, such as Ukraine.

Hnmm.... I dont think so. If it hadnt got indirectly involved, such as providing supplies and arms to Britain and Russia, yeah, but I dont think Germany could have stopped Russia unless Russia was on its knees, which Germany had failed to bring Russia to even before America had got directly involved, and Germany had lost its best chance.


Russia would not have had a chance without direct help from U.S. manufacturing (Soviet production always had problems),

Hmm... it still managed to be the second most productive country of all the powers in the Second World War. true, it would have hadto concern itself more than it did with things such as trucks and secondary things without American support, but I dont think enough to actualy stop it beating off the Germans, and eventually beating them.


and more importantly, direct military pressure from the U.S.

I would have argued this is less important to the USSR's survival than the material support. The vast majority of German forces were always on the Russian front. In fact, after D-Day I dont think very many units got drawn off the Eastern Front at all. Now, it did stop those in the west recuperating and providing a strategic reserve, but it didnt actually draw that much off the Eastern Front.


and Britain's support on other fronts (North Africa, France, and Italy).

Britain could have dont North Africa without American military support (not without material support though. Britain relied on food and industrial supplies and, to a lesser extent, military supplies from the States, but They could have still cleared North Africa without American military support. Remember, the real turn around happened before American troops got involved. Now, it may have lasted shorter because of them, but North Africa could have been won without American troops.

Italy maybe could have been invaded as well.

Though obviously not France. That was almost certainly out of Britain's reach on its own.


Stalin would have been doomed.

Nah. Germany had lst by December 7th (or 9th? cant remember) 1941. It was simply a matterof time.


As far as the U.K.'s fate, they did not have the man-power nor the industrial production to invade 'fortress Eurpope' on their own.

Probably not, but air raids (far more devestating than the German ones) would have continued.


Germany would have eventually forced the U.K. to capitulate

Maybe... if the U-Boats had succeeded. No other way to really do it other wise.


or would have invaded once things were firmed up on the Easter front.

Which was not going to happen when Germany still had to think about Britain in the first place. If ever. And even then, Germany simply didnt have the navy, or the landing craft. The invasion fleet would have been sunk (maybe at some cost in British vessels, but not really as crippling as German losses would have been) and after late 1940 Britain could have probably shown off any remaining invasion forces, and especially after 1941.


Don't forget, Germany did have a plan to invade England, and almost carried it out (Operation Sea Lion).


Yeah. And it was seriously flawed, and would have almost certainly failed. The British Navy would have sunk the invasion fleet, and after 1940 Britain could probably resist any invasion forces on land as well.


This is not to say that the U.S. could have done all the heavy lifting without any help. If Russia was not fighting for its existance on the Eastern front, the U.S. would not have been able to get a foothold on the mainland.

The US, and Britain, and the Free French, and the Canadians, and the Poles... wait... they were in Italy I think. More than just the Us though.


England was crucial in routing the German navy from the north sea, providing a launching point for the Normandy invasion,

Britain, please. Dont appreciate 3 whole other countries being labelled as "England". Dont mind the English, but I dont think they would like being called Scotland either.


and near constant bombing from the RAF along with the U.S. airforce. The soldiers that the British, Canadians, and Polish fielded did more than just stand around and whistle, even though they were not the majority of the forces.

Yes. And the Americans didnt become the majority of the forces until a little while after the initial landings. At the initial landings there were more Commenwealth and other allied forces than Americans.

The USA entered the war in 1941. To cut a long story short, the Allies won.

BUT what I want to ask you is, what do you think would have happened had America remained nuetral, or only focused on the War in Asia?

This thread is because I'm a tad tired of some Americans thinking (when hearing a Europhile being anti-american), "Yeah, well if it wasn't for us, you'd be saying that in German." (Unless they actually ARE speaking German. Which would be ever so slightly ironic....)

So, lets find out what NS thinks Europe would have been like if the USA DIDN'T enter.

**Plus, some Americans think if the USA hadn't entered the war, Germany would take over Europe. I like to think if Britain had sided with the Nazis, the USA national language would be German. Lets hear it for the Brits!**Kommt drauf an wie neutral die Vereinigten Staaten sein würden... :p

Hah, very funny. The US played an important role in halting the final German push on Paris during the second world war.

Eh... are you walking about the Battle of the Bulge? He was talking about ww1, not ww2. And that offensive wasnt aimed at Paris, but Antwerp. Though, yes, that was in fact largely (though not entirely) a German vs American thing. The 1918 Ludendorf offensive on the other hand happened before the Americans were really important in WW1. And it was spent before the Americans arrived in great numbers. And it was that that sapped the final German strength of WW1


American Army and Marine units were vital in blunting the German advance at Belleau Wood,

Not sure what this was.


and American naval units were very important in decreasing the U-Boat threat to allied shipping.

Yes. Wait... what war are we talking about? WW1? I dont know about that. But WW2, yeah.


Once again I will cite Marshall Zhukov who testified that without the lend-lease aid, oil, metal, trucks, airplanes and various other weapons from the US, the USSR would have collapsed in the winter of 1942. American trucks were key in moving the Soviet military, and if they had been lacking, there is little doubt the Nazis would have found the Soviet forces that stopped them outside of Moscow in their way, they probably would have rolled into the city and broken the USSR.

Erm... the offensive on Moscow was in 1941, not 42. 42 was the drive on Stalingrad and the Caucuses. Now, it is possible that defeat then could have lost Russia the war, but I dont think Germany could actually win by then.


Furthermore, the US and UK forced the Germans to divert crack armored units to other fronts from the East, even before the invasion of Normandy.

The large part of Germany's army was still on the Eastern Front. And I believe the actual invasion itself did not draw many (if any) units from the East, instead drawing from other areas (such as garrison units), and from strategic reserves.

Eh... are you walking about the Battle of the Bulge? He was talking about ww1, not ww2. And that offensive wasnt aimed at Paris, but Antwerp. Though, yes, that was in fact largely (though not entirely) a German vs American thing. The 1918 Ludendorf offensive on the other hand happened before the Americans were really important in WW1. And it was spent before the Americans arrived in great numbers. And it was that that sapped the final German strength of WW1

The Battle of the Bulge was WW2. He is referring to the final assault aimed at Paris in March 1918 by the Germans.



Not sure what this was.

One of the most crucial battles in the Michael and George German offensives of March/April 1918. US troops were crucial in stopping German forces from breaking through hard-pressed allied lines



Yes. Wait... what war are we talking about? WW1? I dont know about that. But WW2, yeah.

Germany had U-Boats in WW1. US naval vessels and personnel helped tie down their remaining boats from disrupting allied aid in repelling the final German offensives



Erm... the offensive on Moscow was in 1941, not 42. 42 was the drive on Stalingrad and the Caucuses. Now, it is possible that defeat then could have lost Russia the war, but I dont think Germany could actually win by then.

If Marshall Zhukov himself said that the USSR would have lost the war then, you can count him as right. As one of the most powerful and intelligent Field Marshalls in the Soviet Army, Zhukov had his 'Finger on the Pulse' as it were. He knew how valuable the US and British aid was to the war effort.[/QUOTE]

Eh... are you walking about the Battle of the Bulge? He was talking about ww1, not ww2. And that offensive wasnt aimed at Paris, but Antwerp. Though, yes, that was in fact largely (though not entirely) a German vs American thing. The 1918 Ludendorf offensive on the other hand happened before the Americans were really important in WW1. And it was spent before the Americans arrived in great numbers. And it was that that sapped the final German strength of WW1
If you read who I was quoting, he was talking about the first world war.



Not sure what this was.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/belleau.htm


Yes. Wait... what war are we talking about? WW1? I dont know about that. But WW2, yeah.
Most of the thread has been about the second world war, but



Erm... the offensive on Moscow was in 1941, not 42. 42 was the drive on Stalingrad and the Caucuses. Now, it is possible that defeat then could have lost Russia the war, but I dont think Germany could actually win by then.
I'm just going with Marshall Zhukov's analysis of the situation. He stated that Soviet Forces would not have been able to hold out against the German forces that were close to Moscow (which was not the primary German thrust at the time) without the aid received from the US.


The large part of Germany's army was still on the Eastern Front. And I believe the actual invasion itself did not draw many (if any) units from the East, instead drawing from other areas (such as garrison units), and from strategic reserves.
Units which would have otherwise been used against Soviet forces.

Your nation is also usually extremely presumptuous in thinking that it alone won the war, when the UK and the USSR (despite my antipathy for it) entered the War. Heck, had the US not entered WW 1, Germany might have won, let alone WW 2.

Not WW1 they would not. But WW2 would have dragged on A HELL of a lot longer without US support. With the trade and the end of the blitz Britain might have survived, but western europe would not have been liberated in '44and if hitler had not broken the non-agression pact with The USSR it might never have been.

As much as I hate conceding anything to anyone, we would have been in deep shit without the yanks.

Had the U.S. not gotten directly involved in Eurpoe during WWII, then I think Germany would have held mainland Europe, and probably large portions of Russia and other Soviet States, such as Ukraine. I serously doubt that they would have pushed through to Siberia. What Hitler wanted was Ukraine, Western Russia, and the Caucasas. Russia would not have had a chance without direct help from U.S. manufacturing (Soviet production always had problems), and more importantly, direct military pressure from the U.S. and Britain's support on other fronts (North Africa, France, and Italy). Stalin would have been doomed.

As far as the U.K.'s fate, they did not have the man-power nor the industrial production to invade 'fortress Eurpope' on their own. The French resistance was not setup for nor able to hold territory, though they were quite helpful in disruption leading up to the Normandy invasion. Germany would have eventually forced the U.K. to capitulate or would have invaded once things were firmed up on the Easter front. Don't forget, Germany did have a plan to invade England, and almost carried it out (Operation Sea Lion).

This is not to say that the U.S. could have done all the heavy lifting without any help. If Russia was not fighting for its existance on the Eastern front, the U.S. would not have been able to get a foothold on the mainland. England was crucial in routing the German navy from the north sea, providing a launching point for the Normandy invasion, and near constant bombing from the RAF along with the U.S. airforce. The soldiers that the British, Canadians, and Polish fielded did more than just stand around and whistle, even though they were not the majority of the forces.

Pacific Theater and WWI are for a different thread.

I disagree, if we look at the figures of industrial production for the Soviet Union you'll see that the USSR was outproducing German by the end of 1941. It had successfully geared over 50% of it's GDP toward military needs when the German equivalency stood at between 20 and 30%, by the beginning of 1942 the USSR was pumping out 2500 tanks a month compared to something like 1000 for Germany. Soviet production certainly had a number of problems in various fields, including a frequent buildup of bottlenecks, enormous waste and a lack of quality control but this was more than made up for in other areas.

The American lend-lease program is overstated, whilst it was certainly useful to the Soviet army (particularly through the provision of jeeps) don't kid yourself that it was a decisive factor. Enormous Soviet spending and investment was not dependent on foreign loans, but rather (as was the case throughout the 1930s) suppression of living standards and forced savings on the part of the population at large. The weapons that had the most decisive impact on the eastern front were the T-34 medium tank, the Kalashnikov, the KV-1 heavy tank and Katiusha rocket launchers - all of which were Russian.

The war on the eastern front turned at the end of 1941 with the Soviet failure to take Moscow and with military disaster at the Battle of Stalingrad, the war was, by the start of 1943, unwinnable for the German army.

By the time a second front had been opened up in June 1944, 80% of German fighting strength was geared towards the eastern front, and Hitler spent more and more time in his eastern HQ, (the Wolfschanzze I believe)

I do not wish to deprive credit from either the US or the UK in either the European or the global war, but I believe the only real difference that would have occurred in Europe had the USA not intervened would have been an extension of the Soviet sphere of influence into France and as a result a very different post war peace conference and cold war.

Weee, it's been a while since I gave my opinion on a silly semantical argument, but here I go anyway...

Basically without the U.S.S.R. WWII would of been lost. Americans or no Americans. The U.S.S.R. did more for the WWII theater in Europe than any other one single country. That being said, I think we won because ALL of the allies pulled together and therefore this is semantics.. because we will never know for sure. The allies won the war, no one single country. That is fact and that is what happened. It was a combined effort.

Anything else is pure speculation. (even on my part)

If the USA had not been supplying Britain with resources, Hitler would have crushed them, how that would have affected the USSR's progress from the Eastern Front I don't know.

See, this is the problem with these type of arguments.. people only knowing part of the story.

In fact, Mutual Aid is the principal economic means by which Canada assisted its allies with food, raw materials and munitions from May 1943 until the end of WORLD WAR II. Canada allocated over $2-billion worth of Canadian production without charge, most of it going to Britain and the Commonwealth. An act of enlightened self-interest, it adhered to the fundamental principle that there should be no war debts that would burden postwar trade.

The Battle of the Bulge was WW2. He is referring to the final assault aimed at Paris in March 1918 by the Germans.

Well, I knew what the person he had quoted has talked about, but I thought he mad maybe got it muddled up. I dont think the American involvement could have been that vital in stopping the offensive. While Americans may have been involved, I cannot believe that the Germans could have pushed through even if the Americans hadnt been there. The Germans were nearly spent. I find it hard to believe that the Allies would have actually been defeated without American military support. Victory would have been delayed certainly, and it would have cost far more British and French lives, but defeat?


Germany had U-Boats in WW1.

Yes, I know that.


US naval vessels and personnel helped tie down their remaining boats from disrupting allied aid in repelling the final German offensives

I havent heard of American help with the WW1 U-Boat Menace, so that is why I said, I am not sure, but I agreed with the WW2 threat.


If Marshall Zhukov himself said that the USSR would have lost the war then, you can count him as right. As one of the most powerful and intelligent Field Marshalls in the Soviet Army, Zhukov had his 'Finger on the Pulse' as it were. He knew how valuable the US and British aid was to the war effort.

Well, he may have been right, but he cannot actualy know what would have happened without American aid. It may have just been harder, rather than result in actual defeat, as the USSR would have had to produce trucks etc itself. Or it may have resulted in defeat.

If you read who I was quoting, he was talking about the first world war.

Well, yes, I had noticed that, but having given a vital role to the Americans I presumed it was you that had misunderstood. I really dont think that without American direct military aid the British and French would have been defeated. found it harder, yes, but the Ludendorff offensive was over before the Americans got highly involved.


http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/belleau.htm

Interesting. Never heard of it before. Well, we learn of something new everyday.


Units which would have otherwise been used against Soviet forces.

Or remained as garrison troops. But, eventually, probably, but not in a way to actually prevent the Soviets defeating the Germans in the end. Of course, I am glad that the Commenwealth and US forced invaded Western Europe, as Western Europe did not end up being Soviet sattalite states, but by that point the Germans had certainly lost.

My supposition is that were the US not to get involved in the war in Europe that things would have been drastically different.

The US involvement in the war came well before the official declaration of war. It was providing substantial aid in the form of equipment and supplies (in addition to covertly supplying troops - not that the troops were of a strategically significant level, but I would not want to completely denigrate the sacrifices those men made) to Britain from the start – including 50 destroyers given in 1940. Thus if we are to consider the US to have been truly neutral, we would have to take this into account.

Were the US to focus entirely on Japan and stay completely uninvolved with Europe, I believe that the Axis would have been successful in conquering Europe.

My reasoning is as follows:

Britain relied upon US shipments of supplies for maintenance of their defense systems. Roughly a quarter of British munitions in the war came from the US – not to mention the naval vessels (while the British navy was indeed substantial, it rather stretched thin trying to cover the whole of the Atlantic and Mediterranean), aircraft, and even the proximity fuse (which turned flack cannons from being merely a light and sound show to make the residents of London feel better into something actually capable of damaging aircraft). These supplies are what enabled the UK to successfully hold its own against the Axis.

I do give full credit to the command and control system developed by the RAF. This was a phenomenal system that, in my opinion, would have let the RAF stand against the Luftwaffe for many years, despite being outnumbered and undersupplied.

The defeat of the UK would have been political rather than military. After the debacle of Dunkirk, despite the PR, and continuing losses without any hope but peace through attrition, it would not have taken long before the political forces arguing for a peace agreement would have won out. While outright surrender would have been avoided, a peace agreement would likely have been made.

The Soviets were just as reliant upon US support to maintain its ability to wage war. While they may have been able to produce enough direct material for combat, all the guns and tanks in the world are useless if you cannot get them to the front or keep them supplied while they are there. Most of the train locomotives and half of the trucking were American – thus the logistics of the Soviets were entirely dependent upon US aid. Not to mention supplies of everything from ammunition to aviation grade fuel

The number of troops and tanks fielded by the Soviets was substantial; the ability to get and keep them there was largely due to American supplies. While I am in no way implying that the soviets could not have fought well, they would have been severely hampered without the aid.

Much like Napoleon’s invasion, Hitler’s invasion was brought down more by the Russian winter than by the opposing army. Nazi troops stretched way beyond their supply lines and wearing summer clothing did not fare long in the winter.

Now – given these descriptions, let us conjecture as to the outcome of the war.
Britain would have signed a peace treaty, or at the very least an armistice with Germany. This would have eliminated any real threat to the west, allowing the Axis to consolidate its hold on western Europe sans the UK and Ireland. With that particular front locked down, men and material could be redirected to the Eastern front.

While the debacle of the invasion of Moscow would still have occurred, German troops pulling back and getting resupplied would have turned the tide once again. German troops and supplies coming from the west would have reestablished the logistical connections and brought Axis forces back up to strength, reversing the situation. With Soviet logistics failing, due to a severe shortage of truck or train transport, the Soviet troops would then be greatly undersupplied. Even with American help they often had to abandon tanks and equipment after a single engagement due to an inability to maintain or repair them. Without that support the Soviet offensive would have ground to a halt and eventually cracked under German pressure. Stalin would probably have sued for peace and either gotten it in exchange for Ukraine and western Russia.

The Axis, with access to all the supplies it needed from the Mediterranean and near East, would then not be suffering from a shortage of oil or food. Now we have a Nazi Europe stretching out into Ukraine and the British Commonwealth focusing on the Pacific and Australia.

All Germany had to do was to consolidate that territory. Research on their own atomic bomb was progressing but greatly hampered by fighting against the Americans and a lot of key facilities getting hit by American bombers – without that, Germany would have likely developed its own nuclear bomb by 1946 at the latest. Additionally, rockets were being developed that had intercontinental ranges.

I am now going to venture well beyond having any academic material to support me and move into true conjecture:

Hitler’s degeneration due to Parkinson’s disease would have seen a successor in control of the Third Reich around 1945 no matter what the situation. Germany would have some time to rebuild its losses and start to actually digest its new territory. Though the Axis would have likely refocused on Britain and this time, with great resources at its disposal and no other serious combatants, would have won. Then without the Push from Hitler, I doubt they would have turned on the US right away.

The cold war would have been between Nazi Europe and the US. Given that the whole space race was based upon what both Russia and the US plundered from Germany, it would have been a very one-sided affair.

Hnmm.... I dont think so. If it hadnt got indirectly involved, such as providing supplies and arms to Britain and Russia, yeah, but I dont think Germany could have stopped Russia unless Russia was on its knees, which Germany had failed to bring Russia to even before America had got directly involved, and Germany had lost its best chance.


I respectfully disagree. Russia was on its knees. Even when they (actually, it had more to do with the weather) bogged the Germans down for a couple of months, they were pretty much on their last strings. Even if after the winter they could have staged an offensive, using units finally transferred from the East, they probably would not have been able to sustain it as far as they did without the various forms of help mentioned previuosly.


Hmm... it still managed to be the second most productive country of all the powers in the Second World War. true, it would have hadto concern itself more than it did with things such as trucks and secondary things without American support, but I dont think enough to actualy stop it beating off the Germans, and eventually beating them.


Defintely not per capita ;)
Also, I disagree that their production could have kept up without direct aid.


I would have argued this is less important to the USSR's survival than the material support. The vast majority of German forces were always on the Russian front. In fact, after D-Day I dont think very many units got drawn off the Eastern Front at all. Now, it did stop those in the west recuperating and providing a strategic reserve, but it didnt actually draw that much off the Eastern Front.

Disagree about the word "vast", but otherwise agree. Still, throw a few more divisions on the eastern front and take away most of the military aid to Russia and the situation would have likely been quite different.


Britain could have dont North Africa without American military support (not without material support though. Britain relied on food and industrial supplies and, to a lesser extent, military supplies from the States, but They could have still cleared North Africa without American military support. Remember, the real turn around happened before American troops got involved. Now, it may have lasted shorter because of them, but North Africa could have been won without American troops.


No argument here.


Italy maybe could have been invaded as well.


Maybe, but the U.S. supplied nearly all the landing craft for the Allies in WWII. Not to say that the U.K. couldn't have developed and produced some, but they didn't have enough at that point. Perhaps this may have been different if they weren't relying on the U.S. in this capacity.


Though obviously not France. That was almost certainly out of Britain's reach on its own.


Yep.


Nah. Germany had lst by December 7th (or 9th? cant remember) 1941. It was simply a matterof time.


I don't think that a complete German breakdown and surrender was a given until after the Normandy invasion proved successful.


Which was not going to happen when Germany still had to think about Britain in the first place. If ever. And even then, Germany simply didnt have the navy, or the landing craft. The invasion fleet would have been sunk (maybe at some cost in British vessels, but not really as crippling as German losses would have been) and after late 1940 Britain could have probably shown off any remaining invasion forces, and especially after 1941.


You're right about the lack of landing craft. They had lots of makeshift manding craft and could have possibly pulled it off (initial landing, that is), but not in the most effective way. I agree that earlier in the war, Sealion would have been a failure, most likely. However, they didn't do it then, and if the picture had been different on the Eastern front due to the U.S. not being involved, then it may well have been a different scenario. Also, the question was less of naval power and more of air power. Germany could have made any massed naval maneuver by the U.K. in the English Channel very costly, indeed. Of course, the RAF would want a piece of that action too. Basically, this would be a huge air battle with landing craft or a landing as the prize for either side. Again, without the U.S., the air situation may not have been so lopsided either, though this is not to take away from the remarkable job the RAF did through most of the war.


Britain, please. Dont appreciate 3 whole other countries being labelled as "England". Dont mind the English, but I dont think they would like being called Scotland either.


You are absolutely right - my apologies. I knew better than that which is why I've been referring to the U.K. Guess one 'Britain' slipped out when I was referring to the whole Kingdom.


Yes. And the Americans didnt become the majority of the forces until a little while after the initial landings. At the initial landings there were more Commenwealth and other allied forces than Americans.


You are correct; the U.S. wasn't as heavily represented in the initial wave as they were in the general campaign post D-Day.

Weee, it's been a while since I gave my opinion on a silly semantical argument, but here I go anyway...

Basically without the U.S.S.R. WWII would of been lost. Americans or no Americans. The U.S.S.R. did more for the WWII theater in Europe than any other one single country. That being said, I think we won because ALL of the allies pulled together and therefore this is semantics.. because we will never know for sure. The allies won the war, no one single country. That is fact and that is what happened. It was a combined effort.

Anything else is pure speculation. (even on my part)

Thats my favourite response so far.

Weee, it's been a while since I gave my opinion on a silly semantical argument, but here I go anyway...

Basically without the U.S.S.R. WWII would of been lost. Americans or no Americans. The U.S.S.R. did more for the WWII theater in Europe than any other one single country. That being said, I think we won because ALL of the allies pulled together and therefore this is semantics.. because we will never know for sure. The allies won the war, no one single country. That is fact and that is what happened. It was a combined effort.

Anything else is pure speculation. (even on my part)


This is absolutely true (referring to the statements in bold in particular. Anyone who says otherwise has a really deep hole to dig out of in defending their statement. However, the thread was started with a question regarding the absence of the U.S. from the European theater. Hence, the speculation around the U.S. role in particular.

Now, convert these assumptions into actual proof.

Japan has limited resources; they needed mainland China and the rest of the Pacific for the oil, steel and other resources to prosecute a war (much like Germany needed the Middle East for the oil), when the US came to the aid of China, the resources were pretty much gone. The US and her allies (including China) had Japan on the ropes. All the A-bomb did was shorten the war. We would have defeated Japan, though it would have taken as much as a year longer (give or take) and millions in casualties on both sides.

No. Germany lost WW I directly because of the US pouring in 2 million fresh troops into the offensive. Before that it was on the verge of victory. It even got Russia to capitulate. Germany may not have won, but it would definitely not have lost. I think treaties would be written up so as to compromise. Germany and Austro-Hungary would be the dominant European forces though, and perhaps the de facto global superpowers, had this been so.


Germany was far from on the verge of victory. The German people were starving at home and the allies were breaking through their lines slowly. What the US did was speed up the inevitable. Had the US failed to support the British and French in world war one, it is likly that the war would have dragged on much much longer, but it would have still been won by the allies.

All of Europe would be covered by a nice red blanket...

This is absolutely true (referring to the statements in bold in particular. Anyone who says otherwise has a really deep hole to dig out of in defending their statement. However, the thread was started with a question regarding the absence of the U.S. from the European theater. Hence, the speculation around the U.S. role in particular.
I would tend to disagree, without the Soviets the US and UK would have stood a pretty damn good chance of winning. It would have been a whole hell of a lot bloodier, and atomic fireballs rising over major German cities would have been the inevitable conclusion, but the western allies could have won without the Soviets.

I respectfully disagree. Russia was on its knees. Even when they (actually, it had more to do with the weather) bogged the Germans down for a couple of months, they were pretty much on their last strings. Even if after the winter they could have staged an offensive, using units finally transferred from the East, they probably would not have been able to sustain it as far as they did without the various forms of help mentioned previuosly.

Hmmm... ok, I will give that. Still not 100% convinced, but I have always been of the opinion that material support from America was at least very important.


Disagree about the word "vast", but otherwise agree. Still, throw a few more divisions on the eastern front and take away most of the military aid to Russia and the situation would have likely been quite different.

Well, ok, but throw a few more divisions but retain the material support, and I think Russia would have still won


No argument here.

Ok. Just fed up with many Americans claiming they were vital in North Africa, and rather downplaying Britain's role there.


Maybe, but the U.S. supplied nearly all the landing craft for the Allies in WWII. Not to say that the U.K. couldn't have developed and produced some, but they didn't have enough at that point. Perhaps this may have been different if they weren't relying on the U.S. in this capacity.

Thats why I said maybe, as I wasnt sure myself.

And it certainly would have been slower in progressing anyway without American help.


Yep.

Something I think pretty much everyone agrees with.


I don't think that a complete German breakdown and surrender was a given until after the Normandy invasion proved successful.

I really dont think D-Day was that vital. It certainyl shortened the war, and made sure Europe wasnt entirely under the influence of the USSR. I have yet to see anything that suggests after 1942 there was even a chance of Germany winning the war. If we now retain the material support to Russia and bombing raids, but D-Day never happens, what really could have happened in 1944 that would have made the Germans win?


You're right about the lack of landing craft. They had lots of makeshift manding craft and could have possibly pulled it off (initial landing, that is), but not in the most effective way. I agree that earlier in the war, Sealion would have been a failure, most likely.

But early in the war was the only time Britain was not prepared for an invasion.


However, they didn't do it then, and if the picture had been different on the Eastern front due to the U.S. not being involved, then it may well have been a different scenario. Also, the question was less of naval power and more of air power.

Yes, that was what the Battle of Britain was initially about, but if losses had got too great in the RAF they would have withdrawn the fighters out of range of the German bombers, and only released them to protect the British Navy when the Germans actually invaded. What was to actually prevent the landings was the navy.


Germany could have made any massed naval maneuver by the U.K. in the English Channel very costly, indeed.

Oh, certainly it would have been costly, but I am not sure it would have been so total as the Germans required it to be. The Germans relied on the airforce destryiong the fleet, when they had shown themselves to not be as effective at doing so as they had hoped, and they would also have the RAF buzzing around shooting at them when they tried to do this. They needed total air superiority for any landings to be a success, and it is unlikely they would have ever achieved this.


Of course, the RAF would want a piece of that action too. Basically, this would be a huge air battle

Well, a huge air battle while Destoyers and other similar sized ships shooting up the landing craft. The RAF's role in any invsaion was to cover the Royal Navy. They would have only really gone after the landing craft themselves if the Germans had been driven out of the sky.

And if that had been done the landing craft would be sitting ducks.


Again, without the U.S., the air situation may not have been so lopsided either,

Well... again, if they totally removed material support, certainly, but then Britain would be forced to surrender before any invasion. Without the American aircraft? The RAF probably had enough planes and pilots after late 1940/early 1941 to defend Britain. Take the fight to the enemy? Well, they had been bombing right from very early in the war, but certainly wouldnt be able to do it on the scale they did.


You are absolutely right - my apologies. I knew better than that which is why I've been referring to the U.K. Guess one 'Britain' slipped out when I was referring to the whole Kingdom.

Well, you actually said "England" which is even more specific. Personally I have no problem with Britain, but it does exclude Northern Ireland, so the UK is probably best.