Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if the U.S. never entered WW2?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What if the U.S. never entered WW2?

    * I know this has properly has been proposed before, but I ran a search function and didn't come up with anything relavant.

    I was watching Downfall with a large group of people and someone questioned asked me, "What would happen if the U.S. never entered WW2, could the Russian's have defeated the Germans?" I responded, "Since the war in the East had been going on since '41 and we didn't enter the European theater til Italy in '43 and France in '44, it would have cost more lives but eventually the Russians would have defeated the Germans.
    Because after Stalingrad in '42-43, the Germans were weakened due to the destruction of the 6th Army. And the final blow came in July '43 in the Operation Citadel, with the largest tank battle in history."

    Any thought, comments.....

    Dave

  • #2
    Sorry wrong forum.

    Comment


    • #3
      As Ike said "teamwork wins war". Russian was never alone in facing Germans. The Arcadia Conference from December 1941 to January 1942 concluded that it was essential to keep Russia in the war by Allied leaders. Thereafter the second front opened up in North Africa, then Italy, then France. Besides the military maneuver, Allied supplied tremendous war materials to Russia that contributed to the success of Russian counter attacks.

      It was the teamwork of all the allied countries that defeated Axis. None success can be singled out without the help of other countries, strategically at least.

      Comment


      • #4
        Indeed. One must understand that besides a few land units, the Allies drew lots of Luftwaffe units from the Eastern front, thus allowing the VSS to rest and recooperate. Not to mention it made German operations in the USSR a lot more difficult. And yes, the economic help from the Allies was invaluable to the Soviets.
        "Beneath its gilded beauty, though, there lies a poorly designed game which rewards the greedy and violent, and punishes the hardworking and honest; and if you think about it, that's a good representation of capitalism" - Nightfreeze about Eve Online

        Comment


        • #5
          By simply supplying Britain and the USSR with food America did alot for the war effort.

          Comment


          • #6
            Specific to the Eastern Front, whilst it's true that the Soviets stopped the Germans in 1941 and 1942 without much assistance, the huge offensives of 1943-5 could not have taken place without the Lend-Lease trucks, fuel, railway sleepers etc. that flooded in from late 1942 onwards (before then it was more of a trickle ).
            Signing out.

            Comment


            • #7
              Thread moved to it's proper place.
              http://canadiangenealogyandresearch.ca

              Soviet and Canadian medal collector!

              Comment


              • #8
                But....

                I found this interesting;
                In the May 2005 issue of Armchair General on page 16, there is an article entitled, "How Lend-Lease Helped Stalin beat Hitler" and in it, it says that about 10%, mostly difficult to obtain, large end items. And while Lend-Lease was not the decisive factor that enabled Stalin to beat Hitler (Russian blood gets the credit for that) it exerted a major influence on Soviet combat operations.

                Also weren't alot of Luftwaffe units still at war with England in '41 & 42?

                Comment


                • #9
                  I think the Russians would have eventually defeated the Germans without America's involvement in the war. The two things that make me think this are Stalin's strong determination and the sheer numbers of Russians versus Germans. Stalin was the driving force behind the Russian resolve to defeat the Germans. He would not accept defeat at any cost in human lives and destruction. As for the Russian population, they had the capacity to keep pumping people into the army long after the Germans ran out of recruits. The Eastern front was in many ways a war of attrition and in the end the Russians would always have one more man left standing than the Germans. With that said, I think it would have taken a lot longer for the Russians to defeat the Germans without American involvement, maybe even three or four years longer.
                  "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." ~ Marcus Aurelius

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The Soviets didn't have that great an advantage in terms of numbers. Come 1945 they were running out of men for the front-line units. Not only that but US involvement drew away a lot of German men and resources that could otherwise have been deployed in the East. I think it would have ended up as a stalemate somewhere in Eastern Poland.
                    Signing out.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Full Monty
                      The Soviets didn't have that great an advantage in terms of numbers. Come 1945 they were running out of men for the front-line units. Not only that but US involvement drew away a lot of German men and resources that could otherwise have been deployed in the East. I think it would have ended up as a stalemate somewhere in Eastern Poland.

                      It's interesting you say that, because in his book "Lost victories", Manstein believes that after Stalingrad, the Russian had not advanced as much as they would have liked and a stalemate could have been very likely.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        No Overlord Invasion?

                        I remember reading about Stalin demanding a cross channel invasion from Churchill and Roosevelt asap!
                        It was to take pressure off the Red Army in the East.
                        I would like to think the Germans would have conquered Europe.
                        Think of all the times you have played as the Germans.
                        Can you imagine what it would be like not tangling up troops with the western allies and throwing all your panzer divisions etc. at the Russians in the east?
                        Wow!
                        Slug
                        "Advances in technology tend to overwhelm me."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Exacly Slug, But Brits staged a faked invasion in Dieppe 1942 to appaese the Yanks and Soviets, so alies suffered only a few thousands (mainly) Cannucks casulties instead of tenths of thousands
                          BTW I do renember the Panzer General I and II drives on Moscow, that was the days... Nach Russa
                          Kosovo is Serbian.
                          I support United Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
                          Behead those who say Islam is violent!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by NoBull
                            I found this interesting;
                            In the May 2005 issue of Armchair General on page 16, there is an article entitled, "How Lend-Lease Helped Stalin beat Hitler" and in it, it says that about 10%, mostly difficult to obtain, large end items. And while Lend-Lease was not the decisive factor that enabled Stalin to beat Hitler (Russian blood gets the credit for that) it exerted a major influence on Soviet combat operations.

                            Also weren't alot of Luftwaffe units still at war with England in '41 & 42?
                            I was just reading in several books and 2 issues witch have stuff on lend-lease, I dont remember much but it had enough for hundreds of divisions or something like that. I think Germany would lose but it would be a lot longer of a war and it might get to Germany making some Atmoic Bomb and other super crazy weapons they worked on. I think it would be Britain dueing a "Blitz" on Germany and Berlin. I think the Brits will also just stabalize North Africa and let Russia keep pushing on the land while Britain just made things worse until they could invade somewhere. I also think Japan would be gone before 45 or when we get the Atom Bomb or whatever bomb it was again.

                            Now we must consider the Cold War after. Id guess Russia would have a lot more Europe and a better jumpstart on tanks and stuff from the US not using as many vs Japan. Im not sure if the Soviet Union will collpase faster with more land to struggle with supply or what but that could bring up a Cold War what if.

                            Now if US didnt attack Japan back or there was no Pearl Harbor, hmmm, I need to study up on the pacific more.
                            Last edited by maian; 30 Mar 06, 23:14.
                            yeah!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The Soviet Union could have beaten Germany without Allied help, but it would have taken much longer. Germany could not have beaten USSR because the Soviets just would not quit fighting for Mother Russia. There may have been a stalemate, but Hitler would not have accepted one and would have tried another Kursk at some point. He did order Operation Conrad even after The Bulge. Given Soviet intelligence, they would have broken any other offensive like they did at Kursk and then counterattacked--sooner or later Hitler's foolish offensives would have spelled German defeat.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X