Ok lets take America out of WW2.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: axisandallies

My point for this thread got lost I think on WW1. My point being this. If you take America out of WW2, I think you would have a stalemate at some point. Germany could not take UK, and the UK could not invade Eroupe. Could the Soviets fight a two front war? Could Japan take China and make war on Russia and the UK at the same time? Let's have fun with this.

Warspite1

I just don't see how the US stays out:

Roosevelt was itching (for the right reasons) to enter the war. He knew that if Germany was not stopped in Europe he would end up fighting them nearer home. Japan on her own did not pose the same threat to the US, but if Germany was successful in Europe then the last thing the US needed was a Japan causing trouble in the Pacific.

Japan had two choices; back down in China or get access to oil and other resources by invading the NEI and Malaya. History shows she was only going to make one choice and so with or without an attack on the US - be it Philippines or Pearl - Roosevelt was not going to sit by and watch his oil embargo policy be circumvented by Tojo.

At this stage - December 1941 - the US and Japan are now at war. Now what happens in Europe? We'll never know what might have been I suppose because Hitler made the decision for the US and declared war.

But if Hitler did not declare war, would the US have entered a European war straight away? My guess is it would - although does that mean full blown entry or continuing to operate behind the scenes? Whatever form entry initially took, Roosevelt may have stalled while the Soviet winter halted the German advance, but when Operation Blau got off to a great start for the Wehrmacht the following year, he may have changed his mind.

Rightly or wrongly, I just don't see the US standing back and potentially allowing the Axis to control Europe and large parts of Asia. As we know, the German advance in Russia fizzled out and came to a crashing halt at Stalingrad. But if the US was not involved in a European war at that time, what happens next? Does the Soviet threat to Europe become a problem? Would Stalin have stopped at Berlin with no US involvement in Europe?

Intriguing questions - but dammed if I know....

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: axisandallies

It's alright to accept 50 billion in aid to fight those wars and never pay it back......It's alright...................

It was repaid.

I am aware America don't know that it was.

The new British govt after WW2 had to spend much of their tax revenue to repay the US.

It was called "Lend Lease" it was not given away.

In the UK, the wartinme rationing continued for years after the war due to the govt budget.

-

[axisandallies]

You are right about Roosevelt. He knew that war would get the US back on track, and it did. I know there is a lot of what if's. What if in 1940 Roosevelt was not elected, what then? What if the Japanese Army got their way and went full force in china. What if Hitler had taken his generals advice and put up a defense at the start of 1942. What if Pearl Harbor never happened? At what stage would the US enter the war.

[axisandallies]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

ORIGINAL: axisandallies

It's alright to accept 50 billion in aid to fight those wars and never pay it back......It's alright...................

It was repaid.

I am aware America don't know that it was.

The new British govt after WW2 had to spend much of their tax revenue to repay the US.

It was called "Lend Lease" it was not given away.
side bar here...much of the dept was forgiven by the US.

In the UK, the wartinme rationing continued for years after the war due to the govt budget.

-

[Bamilus]

I should have specified:

When I said the USA was dragged into WW1 I meant that President Wilson and pro-war supporters pushed us to declare war. I think the Zimmerman telegram was definitely not worth declaring war on, and Wilson had provoked the Germans. While the British were trying to starve Germany with a blockade (and not only that, many British ships were told to don the flags of neutral countries so they wouldn't be attacked by German subs). Wilson couldn't understand that the Germans submarine warfare was started solely because of British attempts to blockade and starve the nation.

Britain (including Churchill) actively pushed for a belligerent US, because they knew neutral ships coming to Britain would soon lead to an accidentally sinking by a German submarine and bring the US into the war. To quote Churchill: "It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores in the hope of especially of embroiling the United States with Germany....If some of it gets into trouble, better still."

The Germans warned neutral ships and travelers that they could not guarantee their safety in war zones. This led to the numerous "blatant attacks", like the sinking of the Lusitania (not to mention that over 5,000 cases of ammunition were on board). Not only that, but the US put ridiculous demands on the German government, like asking that their submarines give warning and expose themselves to ARMED merchant ships so "innocents" don't die (while at the same time British armed merchants were attacking German ships with no warning). Wilson insisted that somehow American passengers had rights, even if they were on armed merchant ships in a warzone. Even back then armed ships were KOS in terms of international law.

WW1 was not black and white, good and bad. I'm not saying Wilson engineered a war, but there were MANY pressures (inside and out) for the United States to go to war against Germany. After a stalemate in the west for several years it was crucial that the Entente received new help before the Germans could defeat the Russians and move all their troops west. Britain did everything in its power to get the USA to join the war (ironic that Churchill did the same thing 20 years later).

Honestly, given how belligerent and nonsensical the US policy was in both wars (before any actual declarations) I am surprised at how hard the Germans tried to placate the US and prevent any accidental sinking. Yes, they did happen, but unlike what Wilson or FDR said, they were not apart of an intentional submarine warfare conspiracy against "neutral" United States ships carrying guns and ammo to the UK.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: apathetic lurker

ORIGINAL: Southern_land

Btritain smashed up by the Luftewaffe in 1940 and strangled by Uboats in 1940-42. All but collapses under starvation rations and lack of resources but no invasion is forthcoming. All 2500 merchant ships lost in the Atlantic must come from British and Allied sources, not US. Commonwealth forces outside of Britain are effectively neutered by lack of resources. German Final victory over the Soviets in 1943 with no lendlease plus the German divisions and Luftewaffe freed up from Western Europe as well as extra German munitions, supplies and resources not consumed combating by the Allied bomber campaign. UK and commonwealth converted to a German client state by 1944. US beats Japan in 44 without Nukes, then goes facist under Lindbergh in 1945 because "all the cool guys at school are facist these days".

You assume too much in the Lufftwaffe doing well without American support for Britain. Same outcome as RL.

You assume too much from lend lease.While extremely important to the fight, it wasnt a be all end all.Russia would have taken longer to win.Sure there would have been all these German divisions and Lufftwaffe formations available, but supplying them is a different story.

There was no way Stalin would have surrendered.This would have been a fight to the finish.

The Soviet Union was unable to produce reliable communication wire. We provided every bit of it. With out comm wire, no massed Artillery Divisions. The Soviet Union did not have to make trucks or jeeps we provided them all their vehicles, freeing them to build other items. They did not need to make locomotives for their rail lines, we made them all. We provided THOUSANDS of planes and Tanks while the moved factories tooled up in the Urals.

We diverted 80 percent of the German Airforce, we diverted as much as 40 percent of the German army. Our bombing campaign crippled Germany and slowed their production to a crawl at critical points.

No US no western front. Britain could not mount a credible threat in the West alone. No western front, no knocking Italy out of the war, No help for Britain in the Atlantic. We gave Britain 50 destroyers. We agreed to patrol half the Atlantic long before we entered the war.

The Soviets would not have been much of a threat to Germany with half or less the production of tanks and aircraft, with no massed artillery, with no trucks to move their troops.

YEARS is right. If ever.

[MajFrankBurns]

Just play Making History or Making History II and you can find out what would have happened if the US stayed out of the War.

[Phatguy]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

ORIGINAL: apathetic lurker

ORIGINAL: Southern_land

Btritain smashed up by the Luftewaffe in 1940 and strangled by Uboats in 1940-42. All but collapses under starvation rations and lack of resources but no invasion is forthcoming. All 2500 merchant ships lost in the Atlantic must come from British and Allied sources, not US. Commonwealth forces outside of Britain are effectively neutered by lack of resources. German Final victory over the Soviets in 1943 with no lendlease plus the German divisions and Luftewaffe freed up from Western Europe as well as extra German munitions, supplies and resources not consumed combating by the Allied bomber campaign. UK and commonwealth converted to a German client state by 1944. US beats Japan in 44 without Nukes, then goes facist under Lindbergh in 1945 because "all the cool guys at school are facist these days".

You assume too much in the Lufftwaffe doing well without American support for Britain. Same outcome as RL.

You assume too much from lend lease.While extremely important to the fight, it wasnt a be all end all.Russia would have taken longer to win.Sure there would have been all these German divisions and Lufftwaffe formations available, but supplying them is a different story.

There was no way Stalin would have surrendered.This would have been a fight to the finish.

The Soviet Union was unable to produce reliable communication wire. We provided every bit of it. With out comm wire, no massed Artillery Divisions. The Soviet Union did not have to make trucks or jeeps we provided them all their vehicles, freeing them to build other items. They did not need to make locomotives for their rail lines, we made them all. We provided THOUSANDS of planes and Tanks while the moved factories tooled up in the Urals.

We diverted 80 percent of the German Airforce, we diverted as much as 40 percent of the German army. Our bombing campaign crippled Germany and slowed their production to a crawl at critical points.

No US no western front. Britain could not mount a credible threat in the West alone. No western front, no knocking Italy out of the war, No help for Britain in the Atlantic. We gave Britain 50 destroyers. We agreed to patrol half the Atlantic long before we entered the war.

The Soviets would not have been much of a threat to Germany with half or less the production of tanks and aircraft, with no massed artillery, with no trucks to move their troops.

YEARS is right. If ever.

in 1944 germany produced more planes than the previous years combined.Or close to it. Where where they? Not flying due to lack of fuel. Sure you can build them but it does no good if they sit.

Have you ever seen the tech specs on the t-34? Very simple to make. They would have built enough of them. Granted a lot of material was sent in thru lend lease but the raw materials were worth a lot more than the planes. Only 20 % of the VVS had western supplied aircraft. YOu are correct about the tanks being a significant portion (about 11% of total Russian built tanks).

As far as I recall, the German industry still managed to produce quite a bit with about 27k armored units made in 44 alone. So it wasnt that crippled...Damaged yes, but not crippled. Again, it comes to fuel. The western allies did not significantly impact fuel production with germany producing about 12 million bbl domestically in 1944 with about the samer level coming in from Roumania. Combat got rid of these totals rather quickly.
Since Stalin followed a scorched earth policy, the large oil fields in the Caucasus would have been absolutely worthless for over a year from the time the Germans took them in the scenario thats envisioned here.

In regards to your last statement. Like I mentioned, only about 20% of the aircraft were western supplied and only about 10% of the tanks were western supplied and even taking into account the raw materials to help make a portion of the others I don't know where you came up with about half. You are correct about the massed artillery divisions and trucks and locomotives, but here too the majority of the Soviet soldiers got around the same way their landser counterparts on the German side did..They walked...

It would have been a bit of a different war but the end result would have been the same.

EDIT:
I had an argument with a Russian about this topic years ago on the net with me actually defending the lend lease program and basically cutting up his Pro-Soviet arguments since he was basing all his theories on Soviet propaganda articles and books. So I am not diminishing what the west did at all.

EDIT:
Suffice to say, no a single one of us would be here discussing this if Germany and Japan won the war.....so its a good thing the USA got involved for our sakes....

[AndySfromVA]

The US couldn't have stayed neutral in the Pacific after getting attacked by Japan.

But if the US never provided any aid or military assistance to GB or the Soviet Union, Germany would have swept to victory.  Without American aid, the British lose Northern Africa.  Britain may have been invaded, maybe not.  Without having to worry about a US invasion of France, Germany would have been able to move even more troops and equipment to the Russian theater.  Well-provided with middle eastern oil, German troops and tanks would roll on to victory, capturing Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad and everything else of value.

Back to the US, without having to provide aid or troops in Europe or North Africa, the US would have concentrated all its resources in defeating Japan, which would have happened much earlier than in real life.  The USA would ultimately control the entire Pacific and most of Asia, while Germany controlled most of Europe and the Middle East.  Eventually the US and Germany would have to clash.

[Mike Dubost]

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

ORIGINAL: Punk Reaper

Stupid tread since its impossible to take USA out of WW2...... can't imagine a scenario where it would have been in the USA best interests to stay out......

I'm not so sure about that. The US often does things that aren't in their best interest. They certainly delayed entry in to both world wars even after allies were attacked. It may have been possible had Germany and in particular Japan played their cards differently that there would have been further delay or even no entry at all.

Although I share your general opinion that the entry into WWII was clearly in the USA's long-term interests, I think you are being unfair to FDR here.

For one thing, the USA was not allied with any country attacked. I think this mis-understanding comes from calling the victorious coalition of WWI "The Allies". Near-contemporary sources such as Pershing's memoirs frequently use the term "The Allied and Associated Powers", since a certain large North American republic was not willing to sign a formal treaty of alliance.

Despite our reputation for historical amnesia, the US does remember some history, especially when it involves our Founding Fathers. George Washington's advice to avoid entangling European alliances was only discarded after the events of the 1930s and 1940s convinced the majority of US policymakers that alliances were preferable to facing totalitarians alone. Even then, it was not a forgone conclusion that the isolationists would lose the post-war struggle for control of the Republican Party.

In addition, FDR had a good enough "read" on public opinion to be elected President 4 times, and he was convinced that he moved as fast and as far as US public opinion would allow. It is possible that he could have done more to convince the public, but I am not sure enough to second-guess a master politician.

For what it is worth, the US did act rather substantially in setting up the oil embargo against Japan. According to Samuel Eliot Morison's History of US Naval Operations in WWII (Volume III, Page 36), the US ambassador to Japan warned in 1938 that this was risky. "Consequently, neither an oil embargo nor any other economic sanction should be imposed until and unless the United States was 'prepared to see them go through to their logical conclusion, and that might mean war.'". In other words, FDR and Cordell Hull knowingly chose to risk war in the hope of compelling Japan to stop its agression in China. Arguably, the oil embargo was a miscalculation, but it is not always seen as the significant action it truely was.

[Bamilus]

EDIT: Bah...nm [:D]

[axisandallies]

what about the uboats? Could England alone handle such a threat? From 1939-1941 I would give it to Germany but 1942-1945 it was the allies who took control.

[Mike Dubost]

ORIGINAL: axisandallies

what about the uboats? Could England alone handle such a threat? From 1939-1941 I would give it to Germany but 1942-1945 it was the allies who took control.

That one is not a simple answer. In our history, the "BrUSA" agreement led to intelligence sharing, and the US did build a signficant number of the mechanical computers used to crack Enigma. Absent those contributions, it would have been harder to decript messages, so the UBoats would have had an easier time. On the other hand, many of the sinkings in early 1942 were in US waters, and traffic analysis could help locate wolfpacks.

On the whole, I think the Comonwealth would still have beaten the UBoats, but it would have been delayed.

[ilovestrategy]

Europe. I have no clue how it would have turned out. In the Pacific I think US intervention was essential to victory. 

[Phatguy]

One thing that has not been mentioned is the carpet chewing madman in his bunker......Hitler

German policies and strategic /operation planning would still revolve around him.........

[Southernland]

Are you suggesting he would have ordered the Wehrmacht into a sudden left turn for the strategic reindeer deposits[:D]

[Phatguy]

ORIGINAL: Southern_land

Are you suggesting he would have ordered the Wehrmacht into a sudden left turn for the strategic reindeer deposits[:D]

More than likely...More than likely.....hehehehe

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: axisandallies

what about the uboats? Could England alone handle such a threat? From 1939-1941 I would give it to Germany but 1942-1945 it was the allies who took control.

According to the late Clay Blair.....UK did handle the threat in that in the period before America's entry spurred the shift to the US East Coast by "drawing" the Uboats during the first phase of the Battle of the Atlantic (Uk vs Germany). It was his theory that the Uboats never came close to starving Britian based on a huge mound of statistics. The delicious irony of course is that despite his work's massive statistical base, (a huge two volume set) some of his conclusions remain controversial, proving once again that statistics alone don't prove anything. Still, despite some obvious biases, his works are facinating. It does seem apparant that Germany never had enough Uboats for the job by the time WW2 began. Even without the US in the war, assuming Germany invades the Soviet Union, they wouldn't be able to divert enough resources to make up for it + from 1939 onward, UK ASW would mature and improve as well.

[Capt. Harlock]

But if Hitler did not declare war, would the US have entered a European war straight away? My guess is it would - although does that mean full blown entry or continuing to operate behind the scenes?

Again, we already *were* involved -- and not just behind the scenes. Google USS Kearny and USS Reuben James.

[Yogi the Great]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

------ proving once again that statistics alone don't prove anything.

Reminds me of one of my favorite sayings; There are lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics.