WWII without America?

[LYR]

Would the Allies have won the war without US intervention (not including the US lend lease program)?

All ideas open

[jnd94]

who cares......America did invade, and that is all that matters.

[muy_thaiguy]

Well, if Japan had not been to busy fighting the US in the Pacific, Russia's already thinned forces would have crumbled (when they found out that Japan would not invade, they immediately shifted 40 divisions of troops to their Western Front, enabling them to finally turn the invasion back). If the US had not intervened, then even Russia would have probably fallen like Poland, France, and Scandinavia before them.

[Qwert]

Yes,but war will be only longer with more casualty.
I read that Russian have after German Attack,every month 500000 recruits,and german all ready fight in several fronts,and they start loosing in africa without US army involvment,also Japs will in later stage start losing agains Chinese red army,only because hes human resouces are small against Chinese. Dont forget Russian Winter,who is more help to Russian,and whas enemy to Germans.

[suggs]

Well, if Japan had not been to busy fighting the US in the Pacific, Russia's already thinned forces would have crumbled (when they found out that Japan would not invade, they immediately shifted 40 divisions of troops to their Western Front, enabling them to finally turn the invasion back). If the US had not intervened, then even Russia would have probably fallen like Poland, France, and Scandinavia before them.

Nope.
The Japs were busy enough fighting in China (the most important theatre for them, where they lost the vast majority of their troops).
The Russians knew early on in the war that the Japs would never invade -Russia was simply not part of their ambitions (well, not until they had conquered China).

The US intervening meant that ALL of Europe didn't go Communist.
Its a "what if?" (or "counterfactual") but the Russians probably would have beaten the Germans on their own-it would have taken a bit longer, sure.
The Americans joining the war meant that the Allies DEFINITELY would win (due to the USA's almost infinite economic resources/manpower).
But Stalin woud have won anyway -and what price the UK resisting a Soviet invasion?
None. Europe would have been under the Red Flag, instead of the swastika.

So thank f*ck the Yanks got involved, even though their intervention wasn't necessary.

[iancanton]

i think suggs hits the bullseye. the germans were always likely to lose a war on two fronts. after stalingrad, this became certain. europe would have saved itself from nazism without the americans.

the usa, however, saved western europe from communism. without the americans, the soviet tanks would not have stopped in germany, but kept going to take as much french territory as possible, with the war-weary british empire and defeated french powerless to resist.

ian.

[Qwert]

Even British Army start wining in Africa without US Army,and most likely British troop will win in Africa.

These poll is more subjective,because i belive that americans is in Majority here,and will vote for NO.

[whitestazn88]

i think that america lost in the long run because we made everyone mad as shit for pulling the bullshit nukes out.

like if you're playing risk and someone decides to "hand of god" the board and knock all the pieces over and shit. then everyone just gets pissed at them.

poor move america...

[Juan_Bottom]

like if you're playing risk and someone decides to "hand of god" the board and knock all the pieces over and shit. then everyone just gets pissed at them.

It wasn't some friendly board game. They we're playing with real lives. It was a tough call, but I think that they made the right one.

It was estimated that it would cost a million American lives just to establish a beachead in Japan. That is a huge price to pay, if you don't have to.

[Simon Viavant]

Wow, I'm the only not sure. I do know that Japan wasn't about to attack Russia. Eventually , the Russains might have beaten the Germans back. Britain still had naval superiority. But Hitler was mostly winning. I was sure there'd be more not sures, I guess this is a pretty egotistical bunch.

[muy_thaiguy]

Wow, I'm the only not sure. I do know that Japan wasn't about to attack Russia. Eventually , the Russains might have beaten the Germans back. Britain still had naval superiority. But Hitler was mostly winning. I was sure there'd be more not sures, I guess this is a pretty egotistical bunch.

Actually, I have yet to vote.

[Frigidus]

No chance, it would have been like WWII without Russia, Germany was just the stronger force.

[joecoolfrog]

The bottom line is that if Hitler had not attacked Russia then the USA would not have had the opportunity to fight in Europe because by the time it got its arse in gear Britain would probably have had to agree terms with Germany. Appreciate the help in the end guys but would have been happier if you had supported us from the start !

Edit It would be nice if all those Americans who voted no could actually explain the reasons why rather than just sadly toe the pathetic patriotic line.

[LYR]

The Russians were pushing the Germans back. Operation Barbarossa started June 22, 1941 (if memory serves me correctly. If it doesn't it goes in the hole for a week). The counter-attack from Moscow (which pushed the Germans back over 200 miles) began on December 5. The Germans weren't really "pinned" in continental Europe until D-Day (unless you count the US. invading Italy, after Britain, Sept. 9, 1943).

That was nearly two years after Pearl Harbor. The Germans had plenty of time to fight the Soviets, and they were losing. Britain had invaded Italy, and the Italians surrendered Sept. 8, 1943 (a day before U.S. invasion). Again, Axis powers were (basically) defeated in North Africa without U.S. (although U.S. help came eventually, anways).

In conclusion, Britain and the Soviet Union would have outlasted the Germans (if they did not just use brute force).

[joecoolfrog]

The Russians were pushing the Germans back. Operation Barbarossa started June 22, 1941 (if memory serves me correctly. If it doesn't it goes in the hole for a week). The counter-attack from Moscow (which pushed the Germans back over 200 miles) began on December 5. The Germans weren't really "pinned" in continental Europe until D-Day (unless you count the US. invading Italy, after Britain, Sept. 9, 1943).

That was nearly two years after Pearl Harbor. The Germans had plenty of time to fight the Soviets, and they were losing. Britain had invaded Italy, and the Italians surrendered Sept. 8, 1943 (a day before U.S. invasion). Again, Axis powers were (basically) defeated in North Africa without U.S. (although U.S. help came eventually, anways).

In conclusion, Britain and the Soviet Union would have outlasted the Germans (if they did not just use brute force).

So how do you explain the 17 no votes so far ? I have to ask you because none of them seem to have posted....do we just put it down to yah USA USA USA

[jonesthecurl]

I haven't voted.
Like most counter-history, I find I need an earlier question answered.
WHY did the US not join in?



INcidentally, do Mexicans and Canadians and others find it bloody annoying when people say "America" and mean, not only "North America" but ("specifically) the U S A, in the same way that the Welsh, Scots, etc. find it bloody annoying when the media forget the difference between " English" and "British"?

[LYR]

What do you mean by why did the U.S. not join in? you mean in the begining of the war?

Because the U.S. are a bunch of lazy, fatass bastards who wanted nothing to do with foreign affairs. this is called isolationism. this is why the U.S. took so long to join into WWI

[dewey316]

There you go, the US just can't win. We act too much, or too quickly, and we are elitists, or we didn't act soon enough and we are lazy.

I don't think the Nazi's would have done well coming into England, there is a reason they tried and tried the bombing of London for so long, without a huge ammount of success (the early use of Radar played a big role in this, the RAF knowing where the German bombers were gave them a big advantage). I don't think the Germans had the man power or logistical ability to take on Russia in any way that would have conquered them.

On the flip side, without the US help, could the British have pushed the Germans back out of France, and marched into Berlin. Would Britian of had the manpower or ability for the mainland invasion. That is the real question. The Nazi's wouldn't have conquered the world, but how much of Europe would they have held, and for how long.

So with that, I'll let the rest of the world get back to bashing the US.

--John
(A yank who didn't vote, because there are so many thigns we don't know, and can't say what would have happened)

[LYR]

The reason Germany didn't completely destroy England was because Hitler was afraid of water. seriously. he was afraid have a naval assault on britain.

[Ray Rider]

I haven't voted.
Like most counter-history, I find I need an earlier question answered.
WHY did the US not join in?

If I remember right, the US was emerging from an isolationist foreign policy and was attempting to stay out of the European squabbles.

INcidentally, do Mexicans and Canadians and others find it bloody annoying when people say "America" and mean, not only "North America" but ("specifically) the U S A, in the same way that the Welsh, Scots, etc. find it bloody annoying when the media forget the difference between " English" and "British"?

I'm Canadian and I find it a bit annoying, but there's nothing I can do about it and it's not a big deal.

There you go, the US just can't win. We act too much, or too quickly, and we are elitists, or we didn't act soon enough and we are lazy.

Exactly.

I voted that the Allies couldn't have won without the US, because the Germans had the best war machine of the time (next to the US once it got started). Britain, the last European nation holding out against the Germans, was in shambles by the time the US arrived, and the sponge of China couldn't fight back much against Japan. Sure the Germans were losing against the Russians, but once the Germans regrouped, I think they would've beaten the ill-trained, poorly armed Russians.

[Jenos Ridan]

Anyone half familiar with the Russian Army, especially the early Red Army, would know that, the T-34 aside, the Russians had the worst army in the world at the time: "penal" battalions armed with hand tools and the occational sword? Get real.

China was pretty much in the same boat. Np, worse, they were fighing a civil war amid an invasion. The banner of the Sun and Rays (the old Japanese flag) would have flown over a lot of China by the time the Japs wanted to move into Russia.

Britian put up a good show, but once Russia has put all its cannon fodder into the German meatgrinder, they would be best off with some sort of peace terms. Assuming the crazy nut that Hitler was didn't go ahead with an invasion the moment Britian is busy defending Australia from a Japanese Invasion a few years or so down the road.

At the time, the US had every strategic advantage as far as industial production is concerned. If I remember right, something like for every two or three Allied soldiers died for every one Axis trooper. Unless I am wrong (and this time, I hope so), that means that War (in general) is a purely mathematical affair; the army with the greater ablity to replace losses will win always.

[Fircoal]

actually, as much as I dislike my own country, I'd have to say no, I don't know why. Part of it is because of how it's been told to me. By creating the bomb US did something terrible but needed, to save more lives. It's also of note that Germany was trying to create an atomic bomb too, just they weren't as quick, (I think, at least that's what I heard) So if US wasn't there, Germany would have gotten the bomb first and that would have been BAD.

[Minister Masket]

The reason Germany didn't completely destroy England was because Hitler was afraid of water. seriously. he was afraid have a naval assault on britain.

He may have been afraid of water, but that wasn't the reason he didn't invade. He bloody well tried to, ever heard of "Operation Sealion"?
He didn't want to invade at first, because I remember reading somewhere that he liked the British way of life and the monarchy. He would've plonked Edward VIII back on the throne if he'd won.

[tzor]

The reason Germany didn't completely destroy England was because Hitler was afraid of water. seriously. he was afraid have a naval assault on britain.

Incorrect, but the result may have been the same. Hitler kept back the naval assault because he was sold a bill of goods that suggested that England could fall from the mighty air power. In princple the "fast attack" method looks better with planes than with ships. The problem is that in hindsight we now know you can't air bomb a people to submission. (People talk about the two American nuclear bombs, but practically speaking we did more damage when we firebombed Tokyo.)

These kinds of mistakes happened all over the war on both sides.

I voted no. If the United States completely stayed out of the war England would have fallen. Even before the troops, supplies were vital to the war effort. Hitler would have had only one front to worry about, although it would have been a nasty one. Finally the question of what Japan would have done had it not invaded the US is a wild card in the deck.

[KidWhisky]

The allies had already won the war before the Americans even showed up, Hitler was being pushed back and was meeting the Russians on the other side. The Canadian army was a big part of it. Why is it that we are never mentioned as a factor in WWII. True our present army is small and pathetic but during WWII we were quite a force. The Canadians breached quite a few northern beaches in France before the Americans made there first move. You americans ever wonder why it was so easy for you to walk in as the saviors. Because we cleared the way for you. Must be nice to get the credit for winning the war when all you really did was come in and clean up the stragglers. I expect this post is going to get a lot of flack, in which case I would suggest you nonbelievers go to the beaches of France and take a look at the monuments to the Canadian solders.