If U.S. never entered World War 2, how would the war have played out?

[ZERO THEORY]

Thank God.

 

[JayElectra]

It's pretty inconceivable that the US and Japan wouldn't clash. If the US didn't get involved directly in Europe or North Africa, then the war could have lasted longer and the Soviets would have likely made it a lot farther west. France might have become communist (people forget that the communists were a very significant part of the French Resistance).

 

[Mondo Freaks]

No China anymore

 

[SpidermanISGOAT]

Nazi Germany was primarily defeated by the American support on the Western Front. England would have eventually capitulated or been crippled to the point of irrelevancy.

The Nazi/Soviet war would've likely stagnated miserably over a long, long period. Eventually, the Nazis would have forced the Russians over the Urals, at which point open hostilities would end in around 1950, with persistent tension for decades thereafter.

Oh wait - no. That wouldn't have happened. Japan would've attacked the Soviets from the East, eventually opening the way for the Nazis to win. The US ain't fighting the Japanese, either, so Japan is free to barrel down Siberia.

The Germans and Japanese divvy up Siberia between them.

This. People who try to act like or believe the Nazis could of been beat without the Americans are fools. The British were not going to get conquered but British support for the war was declining and they could not have taken Europe back. What was likely and would of happened if the US didnt help them financially and militarily would of been a British treaty with Nazi germany.

People forget Hitler also didnt want war with Britain and was shocked when they went to war and continued against him. He had hoped his Aryan empire could coexist along side the British.

Without lend lease the USSR would of been doomed. Unable to capture Europe. However Hitler couldnt conquer the USSR so what is likely is a Soviet loss of land and being pushed back behind the Ural mountains. Furthermore, without America waging war in the pacific the **** would of been free to attack the Soviets as you say from the east.


Simple fact is without the US. The Nazis would of held Europe and made the British sign a treaty and made the Soviets submit to a treaty.

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

No we'd have to join at some point. There would be no never, not Realistic. This is all saying if japan didn't attack pearl harbor which even if they didn't we'd still join in, but i imagine England would have been mostly conquered which would leave us Iceland to launch an invasion of England.



If the Germans captured Moscow they'd have deal with even harsher more stiffer resistance considering Russian cold weather infantry where pretty fucking hardcore. plus soviet factory where movable an well out of range of German bombers considering they had NO long range bombers. Also Russia had a lot of body's to throw around.


Japan would probably invade new guinea and Australia which we'd have to liberate

Dude, that Gouf custom avatar is fucking AWESOME.

Fuck yeah 08th MS Team!

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

This. People who try to act like or believe the Nazis could of been beat without the Americans are fools. The British were not going to get conquered but British support for the war was declining and they could not have taken Europe back. What was likely and would of happened if the US didnt help them financially and militarily would of been a British treaty with Nazi germany.

People forget Hitler also didnt want war with Britain and was shocked when they went to war and continued against him. He had hoped his Aryan empire could coexist along side the British.

Without lend lease the USSR would of been doomed. Unable to capture Europe. However Hitler couldnt conquer the USSR so what is likely is a Soviet loss of land and being pushed back behind the Ural mountains. Furthermore, without America waging war in the pacific the **** would of been free to attack the Soviets as you say from the east.


Simple fact is without the US. The Nazis would of held Europe and made the British sign a treaty and made the Soviets submit to a treaty.

Greater Germany would've been the dominant European power wedged between a rickety, essentially broken Soviet union, and a forcefully deimperialized Great Britain.

Japan would be the great Asiatic power, having unquestioned control over Korea, Manchuria, Mongolia, and Southeast Russia.

It'd be a vastly different world indeed.

 

[SpidermanISGOAT]

It's pretty inconceivable that the US and Japan wouldn't clash. If the US didn't get involved directly in Europe or North Africa, then the war could have lasted longer and the Soviets would have likely made it a lot farther west. France might have become communist (people forget that the communists were a very significant part of the French Resistance).

Wrong

The Soviets were getting owned until the Germans had to fight a two front war and until lend lease. They were saved by American materials and financial support.

 

[SpidermanISGOAT]

Greater Germany would've been the dominant European power wedged between a rickety, essentially broken Soviet union, and a forcefully deimperialized Great Britain.

Japan would be the great Asiatic power, having unquestioned control over Korea, Manchuria, Mongolia, and Southeast Russia.

It'd be a vastly different world indeed.

100% agreed. And the US would likely have eventual hegemony over all the Americas (though they got this anyways). Hitler wouldnt attack America and likely the French owned African territorys would fall into German hands. Africs would of likely been majority German and Italian controlled.

interesting to see how they would of handled the Middle East.

Anyone with knowledge in history knows this. USSR and Britain simply could not have taken back Europe.

Always irks me when marxist loving commie USSR worshiping folk argue that the "great Soviets" would of saved Europe.

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

Japan had a powerful navy did not have the logistics to penetrate the vast distance of the Soviet Union. Japan succeeded against the Russian navy but were humbled in land combat. Japan would have struggled bad without even facing the Soviet army in Siberia. Japan was also spread thin at that point with their reach for oil to the South and their hold on Manchuria and Parts of China were still a struggle.

If it were not for the Civil war also happening in China Japan would have had even a harder time. Moving those huge numbers of Soldiers to Siberia would have given room for the rest of Asia to shore up their defenses and take some offensive action.

Japan beat the hell out of China on land as well as Sea. Nanking was hundreds of miles inland and was ravaged by the Japanese.

I can see them making huge gains against sparsely defended, sparsely manned Russian Siberia, and causing a huge problem for any retreating Soviet union. The Soviet Union depended on potentially infinite area to retreat to, and once that was lost to them, the USSR could not hope to prevail.

The USSR might not have been extinguished, but it becomes a political and military backwater. I could see Nazi Germany waiting a generation and then taking them on militarily again, provided the Soviets never get the bomb.

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

100%

Anyone with knowledge in history knows this. USSR and Britain simply could not have taken back Europe.

Always irks me when marxist loving commie USSR worshiping folk argue that the "great Soviets" would of saved Europe.

The Soviets were extremely brave/resilient, but they simply depended on the US to shore them pu economically and keep them supplied to push Hitler back, as the US systematically fucked the Axis first in North Africa, then in Italy and France, and finally pushed against the Rhine.

The Soviets and British have no chance to beat Germany on their own.

The US as a truly isolationist power grants the Axis a resounding victory.

 

[Daverisimo]

I think Russia and Germany would've fought to a stalemate, and Britain probably could hold them off, but all of mainland Europe, except for Italy and maybe Spain would be under German control.

As far as the eastern front goes, Japan would've taken China, and then probably set their sights further west

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

It's pretty inconceivable that the US and Japan wouldn't clash. If the US didn't get involved directly in Europe or North Africa, then the war could have lasted longer and the Soviets would have likely made it a lot farther west. France might have become communist (people forget that the communists were a very significant part of the French Resistance).

Japan attacked the US as the US managed a huge oil embargo against them, which was an attempt to essentially strangle the Japanese Empire in its crib. In this scenario, the US is isolationist enough that it probably doesn't spark the conflict with Japan by aggressively denying them access to resources and trade.

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

I think Russia and Germany would've fought to a stalemate, and Britain probably could hold them off, but all of mainland Europe, except for Italy and maybe Spain would be under German control.

As far as the eastern front goes, Japan would've taken China, and then probably set their sights on Korea.

The Japanese had conquered Korea already. The Japanese straight up ruled Korea from 1910-1945. The Korean emperor seceded total sovereignty to Japan via the Japanese-Korean Annexation Treaty.

 

[WrestlinganJudo]

No China anymore

Not quite that simple. Japan was winning on the continent but it was not as easy as people like to make it sound. They had to go south to secure oil, they never penetrated as deep as people seem to think, they were spread a bit thin but still winning. It would have taken them years to consolidate their positions, if they got drawn into the war with the Soviet Union It will be hard to continue. Japan was a naval power not a land power.

 

[Daverisimo]

The Japanese had conquered Korea already.

Derp. Completely forgot about that. The point remains the same though, Japan would've been the sole power in the east

 

[SpidermanISGOAT]

That is true it wasent easy for the Japanese. But they killed like 20 to 25 million Chinese.

There are only so many losses and so much damage a nation can take. Look nobody expected the Japanese to rule all of Asia or the Germans to take mass control of Soviet union. But with enough damage you render the nation crippled and useless. Therefore i dont see how anyone can argue against Japan being the dominant hegemonic power in East and South East Asia

 

[JayElectra]

Wrong

The Soviets were getting owned until the Germans had to fight a two front war and until lend lease. They were saved by American materials and financial support.

Well, if lend-lease were to be off the table, things would have been much more difficult and laborious, but without a quick and decisive victory, Germany was never likely to have success. Probably the most significant problem with invading Russia is not the weather, but the sheer size of the territory. It's a logistical nightmare and the supply lines were probably too difficult to maintain for Germany to ever have any chance of properly subjugating Russia if they weren't initially successful (some would argue they were quite close, but the Russians probably would have done what they always do and just keep on retreating and resisting even if Moscow was taken). Operation Barbarossa's success hinged on the speed of the blitzkrieg securing a quick victory and once that failed, the mission's chances of success were very low. The fact that the Russians were more than willing to fight to the last man and just continue on retreating farther and farther east makes the possibility for a quick and decisive victory extremely unlikely. Once that quick decisive victory wasn't attained, the overall invasion was all but doomed. Add in the fact that Germany never properly embraced total war in the way that just about every other nation did, and you see why a victory wasn't likely (not bringing women into the workforce was a terrible decision).

Napoleon's invasion failed for very similar reasons even though warfare was quite a bit different then. The Grande Armee was actually really well supplied and provisioned for an army of the time and still the sheer distance of the marches proved too much after they failed to achieve a quick and decisive victory. Had the Russians actually stood and fought Napoleon, it would have been a successful invasion as the Russians would have been routed and they would have had to seek terms. Instead, they refused to engage and allowed the massive army to overextend itself and eventually starvation and disease did the job that the Russian troops would never be able to do on the field.

So, basically, lend lease did help a lot and reduced the still massive toll that the war had on the Russians, but the invasion of Russia was likely never to be successful.

 

[WrestlinganJudo]

This. People who try to act like or believe the Nazis could of been beat without the Americans are fools. The British were not going to get conquered but British support for the war was declining and they could not have taken Europe back. What was likely and would of happened if the US didnt help them financially and militarily would of been a British treaty with Nazi germany.

People forget Hitler also didnt want war with Britain and was shocked when they went to war and continued against him. He had hoped his Aryan empire could coexist along side the British.

Without lend lease the USSR would of been doomed. Unable to capture Europe. However Hitler couldnt conquer the USSR so what is likely is a Soviet loss of land and being pushed back behind the Ural mountains. Furthermore, without America waging war in the pacific the **** would of been free to attack the Soviets as you say from the east.


Simple fact is without the US. The Nazis would of held Europe and made the British sign a treaty and made the Soviets submit to a treaty.

Germany already had a set back at the Battle of Moscow. Don't forget Hitler said he might not have invaded if he knew they had so many tanks. Also Germany had weak logistics, much of it was horse drawn. Lend lease had not had time to had an effect on the Eastern front.

The Soviets were willing to take horrible casualties because they could afford to lose the men to buy time. Germany winning in the East was not a forgone conclusion while at the same time having to keep control of gained territory in the West.

Germany didn't commit to a war economy until it was too late, they relied on quick victory, France lost quickly because in American football terminology France got juked. In the actual fighting France fought well against the Germans but Germany was able to get them out of position.

Hiter needed to finish the Soviets quickly but the vast distances made it rater difficult.

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

Well, if lend-lease were to be off the table, things would have been much more difficult and laborious, but without a quick and decisive victory, Germany was never likely to have success. Probably the most significant problem with invading Russia is not the weather, but the sheer size of the territory. It's a logistical nightmare and the supply lines were probably too difficult to maintain for Germany to ever have any chance of properly subjugating Russia if they weren't initially successful (some would argue they were quite close, but the Russians probably would have done what they always do and just keep on retreating and resisting even if Moscow was taken). Operation Barbarossa's success hinged on the speed of the blitzkrieg securing a quick victory and once that failed, the mission's chances of success were very low. The fact that the Russians were more than willing to fight to the last man and just continue on retreating farther and farther east makes the possibility for a quick and decisive victory extremely unlikely. Once that quick decisive victory wasn't attained, the overall invasion was all but doomed. Add in the fact that Germany never properly embraced total war in the way that just about every other nation did (not bringing women into the workforce was a terrible decision).

Napoleon's invasion failed for very similar reasons even though warfare was quite a bit different then. The Grande Armee was actually really well supplied and provisioned for an army of the time and still the sheer distance of the marches proved too much after they failed to achieve a quick and decisive victory. Had the Russians actually stood and fought Napoleon, it would have been a successful invasion as the Russians would have been routed and they would have had to seek terms. Instead, they refused to engage and allowed the massive army to overextend itself and eventually starvation and disease did the job that the Russian troops would never be able to do on the field.

So, basically, lend lease did help a lot and reduced the still massive toll that the war had on the Russians, but the invasion of Russia was likely never to be successful.

If Germany secured peace with Great Britain (as Great Britain would almost certainly have to give up to Germany eventually), they could devote their resources to effectively forcing the Soviets to sign a concessionary treaty with the Germans, granting the Germans effective control over all of Eastern Europe, and more or less retreating over the Urals.

If the Russians faced any sort of attack on their Eastern front from Japan, they'd very quickly be in deep trouble.

The Germans would have effective control of the Middle East (they were checked almost exclusively by the Americans in North Africa/Middle East) granting them access to come through Persia into Central Asia to take the mineral-rich areas of the Soviet control there. Persia was allied with the Germans, and many Moslem countries hated the British enough that they were forming volunteer corps to join the Germans in kicking the British out.

The Soviets would want to sue for a reasonable peace and Germany and Japan would keep consolidating their position/power.

Worse: That gives Germany effectively an eternity to develop the bomb, meaning the renewed campaign against the USSR begins in say, 1959, with the simultaneous atomic bombing of Moscow, Leningrad, Novgorod, et cetera.

 

[JayElectra]

If Germany secured peace with Great Britain (as Great Britain would almost certainly have to give up to Germany eventually), they could devote their resources to effectively forcing the Soviets to sign a concessionary treaty with the Germans, granting the Germans effective control over all of Eastern Europe, and more or less retreating over the Urals.

If the Russians faced any sort of attack on their Eastern front from Japan, they'd very quickly be in deep trouble.

The Germans would have effective control of the Middle East (they were checked almost exclusively by the Americans in North Africa/Middle East) granting them access to come through Persia into Central Asia to take the mineral-rich areas of the Soviet control there. Persia was allied with the Germans, and many Moslem countries hated the British enough that they were forming volunteer corps to join the Germans in kicking the British out.

The Soviets would want to sue for a reasonable peace and Germany and Japan would keep consolidating their position/power.

Worse: That gives Germany effectively an eternity to develop the bomb, meaning the renewed campaign against the USSR begins in say, 1959, with the simultaneous atomic bombing of Moscow, Leningrad, Novgorod, et cetera.

If the Americans weren't involved in the Pacific Theatre, then things could go drastiaclly different for a myriad of reasons (so much so, I won't bother speculating). I think a clash between Japan and US was far too likely to occur to spend much time on the notion of what would have happened if it didn't. My response was speaking more to the possibility of the success of the German invasion of the USSR without D-Day, the invasion of Italy, or even lend-lease. My argument is more that Operation Barbarossa was always going to be doomed because it was poorly conceived.