Matrix Games Forums

Ultimately it took the combined efforts of ALL the allied nations to achieve victory in WWII. Take any of them out of the equation and it's difficult to predict what would have happaned.

I suspect without ANY US involvement (i.e. no Lend-Lease, supplies, materials etc) it ends up in a decisive Axis victory.

With no major US combat involvement but still the "soft" support that the US was giving before Pearl Harbor(Lend-Lease, supplies, logistics, and the sort of low intensity combat that occured in the Atlantic with German U-boats) then I think it's a toss-up.

That's not arrogance, it's a simple realization of what a titanic effort it took to achieve victory.

As for the US-Brit thing.... we need to forget about that garbage...we are "two peoples seperated by a common language".

Seriously, as an American I've always had the utmost admiration for the Brits. Thinking about thier situation between Dunkirk and Pearl Harbor puts a lump in my throat for the sheer courage and determination they exhibited. Frankly, I was always more of a fan of Churchill then FDR.

I find it a bit harder to gin up much admiration for the Russkies.....given that my family came from pre-war Poland. Never forget that Hitler and Stalin started WWII as PARTNERS. Still, there is no denying the amount of fighting and sacrifice the Russian people endured.

England made a great job but i don't like Churchill.

More details on the effect of US combat contributions...

- The US played a major role in the Battle of the Atlantic to protect merchant shipping from German U-boats. We started playing that role even before Pearl Harbor. Without the US, Britain has a much tougher time defending he convoys...and those convoys were vital to Britains war effort.

- The Pacific. I don't think the scale of contribution by US combat forces in this Theatre is much in question. It's an entirely open question to me what happens here without US combat involvement. Though people tend to look at the Theatres in isolation, I think that's a mistake. What happened in the Pacific did have subtle yet important ramifications to Europe. Japan's manpower was pretty strained and they had alot tied up in China, so I don't think they would neccesarly have conquered MUCH commonwealth terrtory (though they may have picked off some)... the threat of attack, combined with IJN activties would have made it VERY difficult for the Commonwealth countries to contribute much to the War in Europe (including supplies and raw materials).

It's also an open question to me what happens between Russia and Japan. I don't think Japan would have attempted a serious gambit against Russia until they had the situation in China far more settled (IF they ever would have been able to get it settled). However, Russia certainly was very concerned over that. It wasn't until after Pearl Harbor that the Soviets made a serious diversion of thier Siberian forces to Europe. Those forces arrived at a critical time in the Battle for Russia. One has to wonder whether the Soviets would have diverted them without US War Entry...and when....and what that delay might have meant to the War in Europe.

- The Air War in Europe. While Britain did effectively win the air war in Western Europe without our combat involvement and was conducting night bombing raids on Germany on thier own, I don't think it's debatable that the presence of USAAF forces in the Theatre raised the intensity of that fight by an order of magnitude.

It's often been the subject of debate as to how much the bombing campaigns and air war contributed toward victory in Europe. It's true that Germany managed to increase it's production despite the bombing campaigns. However, I wonder how much more it's production might have been without them. It's also true that Germany devoted considerable resources to it's air defence...both in terms of fighters and Flak.

- The Second Front. While it's true that the War in the East had already turned a corner before the establishment of the Second Front. Germany devoted a significant number of resources to defending Western Europe from invasion and performing anti-partisan duties. Although the lions share of ground forces were commited to the East. US/British/Can landings in North Africa, Sicily and Italy and ultimately France DID tie up some very effective German Combat troops. The Eastern Front was a bloody enough affair and closely fought in so many key battles, that I DO have to wonder what would have happaned if the Axis could have deployed thier full combat strength there.

As many posters have said, it depends on neutral.

Now, neutral without lend lease (meaning TOTALLY neutral), I think the Soviets and the UK would have been in huge trouble. As many have said, the Soviets relied almost totally on Lend Lease for their jeeps and communications. Not to mention the US sent millions of boots, guns, ammo, tanks, planes, tools, etc. The UK was bankrupt and desperately needed US aid to continue the war. Now, I am not sure if the Germans would have won, but the war would've gone on a lot longer.

During Churchill's birthday celebration in 1944, Alan Brooke said that the British were leading the war effort which led to Stalin to comment that it was a war of machines; and that since the United States supplied most of the machines that the US was leading the war effort.

I hate these psuedo-communist collectivist revisionists on these boards and others who make it sound like the Soviets bore the brunt of the war. They totally disregard the three (or four or five) other theatres of war. They fail to mention that they got so much aid from the UK and the USA. They fail to mention that Allied troops in Italy, North Africa, and west Europe took pressure off of the East Front. They fail to mention that the Allied bombing campaigns (of which the Soviets did very little, until the end of 1944 to 1945) of 1942-1945 severly crippled the German war effort (if you disagree with this statement then read Albert Speer's, the Armament Minister from 42 onward, statements about how truly devastating the strategic bombing campaigns were.) And then they make the Soviets look like liberators, when really the NVKD killed millions of people, even from the start of Barbarossa when they deported tens of thousands of "dissidents" to the Gulags.

I will say the Soviets fought, in some cases, very bravely and were of huge importance to the war effort. However, they lied, cheated, and stole, and hundreds of minorities suffered. Not to mention that the official Soviet military policy for the first three years threw away millions of lives for no reason. The effects of Stalin's Cold War still linger today.

And I don't want to get into too much "what if's", but if the US stayed neutral while Japan quickly mopped up the Pacific (without the US the Pacific would have fallen easily, and in fact it did for the first year) then I could easily see the million plus man army in Manchukuo attacking the almost undefended Soviet eastern border. This two front war would have devastated the Soviets, especially after they moved so many Siberian troops to help during Operation Typhoon and in other campaigns.

I'll finish by saying that every country that actively helped in the Allied cause should be thanked and remembered (sorry Turkey and Saudi Arabia and most of South America...you didn't really do anything). Poland is easily forgotten but their troops fought bravely on almost every front and were rewarded with Soviet domination and western betrayal. The Norwegians, Dutch, Belgian, and Free French troops also continued to fight. And of course all the Commonwealth countries selflessly sent troops to areas thousands of miles away to die and fight for others.

EDIT: No offense to the Brits, but Wodin, I have to disagree. The British would not be able to sustain a SUCCESSFUL bombing campaign of the Reich. You guys tried from 40-42 but failed miserably with huge losses and almost no damage done to the Germans. I have so much respect for the British (I'm a descendant of William the Conqueror down to Edward III, and also related to Winston Churchill), but they were put in a very bad situation. Even though they won the Battle of Britain, they still suffered massive losses and without US supplies and aid it would be hard if not impossible to sustain a successful Reich bombing campaign along with homeland defense, convoy protection, the Pacific War, and the North African theatre. This is just a personal opinion thing but someone smarter and brighter than me will hopefully prove me wrong. I know the British did most of the Reich Bombing, but my comments are merely related to a Britain only war with no US aid and no US help. I just question how successful a solo bombing campaign in that circumstance would be.

Regardless the Brits were top notch troops and did so much for the Allies.

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.

As for the results - certainly a longer war if nothing else. Possibly even an axis victory again depending how both Germany and Japan handled the war with Russia. Japan in particular may have been able to make large gains even if Germany were defeated.
Also when you "take America out of WW2" how completely do we mean. Just direct military involvement or no aid and equipment to anyone? No trucks, supplies or aid of any type and it changes the picture dramtically even on the Russian front.

Edit - must have been writing at same time and just saw the good Bamilus post. Also what I was referring to on US aid. And speak of bearing the brunt and having to deal with a "two front war" The US had both Europe and the Pacific with the brunt of the pacific effort having to be on them. This is not of course taking anything away from the efforts of the Brits, Australians, Phillipinos and others who so bravely fought and died in that theater. Russia for the most part stayed out of the Pacific war until they really weren't needed anyway. No doubt of course that the number loss and suffering of the Russian population was staggering. In the end, Hitler like Napoleon, made the mistake of invading Russia without being ready for all contingencies. The US involvement was one of those.

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.

As for the results - certainly a longer war if nothing else. Possibly even an axis victory again depending how both Germany and Japan handled the war with Russia. Japan in particular may have been able to make large gains even if Germany were defeated.
Also when you "take America out of WW2" how completely do we mean. Just direct military involvement or no aid and equipment to anyone? No trucks, supplies or aid of any type and it changes the picture dramtically even on the Russian front.

People like to paint America First and Charles Lindbergh as "fascists", a laughable statement. I don't think America should have entered the war (until we got attacked, obviously). We got dragged into WW1 and that did nothing for us. I don't want to be selfish but as an American president, FDR had to look over American interests first (which he in many cases did not and broke many promises of isolationism while at the same time engineering a war with the Axis by provoking Germany and Japan in so many ways). If Britain and the Soviets fell, American hegemony would still be unchallenged in the Western Hemisphere. I don't think WW2 was a do or die war for America as so many people point out.

Am I glad we helped to beat Germany? Sure. But if Japan didn't attack us in the first place would I have been all for entering a war thousands of miles away? Maybe not.

People have to remember that the thought (and there is much truth to it) of fighting for what was essentially the maintenance of the British Imperial Empire was not popular in the US mind during the pre-war and WW2 era.

ORIGINAL: wodin

Why can't you see and Allied Bombing Campaign without the USA?

I've never heard that before....I'm sure we ran our own bombing campaign....must have misread it....

The Luftwaffe got smashed up bombing Britian I believe not the other way around...infact I think we won that particular part of the War without the USA....though I may have misread that aswell..

You did run your own bomber campaign at night. You did win that part of the war. My point is, without the Americans and their aid, I doubt that it would have been as effective as it was. i.e the bomber campaign.

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Wodin - I wouldn't bother replying m8 - he's got an agenda and by replying specifically, his little devious wee plan is working.

This is not true. What gets me about the brits is this.....They are more than happy to affend you, but in return of being offended themselfs, well this is an outcry!!! You become petty. It's alright to call American's rebel's, it's alright to downplay America's role in both World Wars, It's alright to accept 50 billion in aid to fight those wars and never pay it back......It's alright...................

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel

More details on the effect of US combat contributions...

- The US played a major role in the Battle of the Atlantic to protect merchant shipping from German U-boats. We started playing that role even before Pearl Harbor. Without the US, Britain has a much tougher time defending he convoys...and those convoys were vital to Britains war effort.

- The Pacific. I don't think the scale of contribution by US combat forces in this Theatre is much in question. It's an entirely open question to me what happens here without US combat involvement. Though people tend to look at the Theatres in isolation, I think that's a mistake. What happened in the Pacific did have subtle yet important ramifications to Europe. Japan's manpower was pretty strained and they had alot tied up in China, so I don't think they would neccesarly have conquered MUCH commonwealth terrtory (though they may have picked off some)... the threat of attack, combined with IJN activties would have made it VERY difficult for the Commonwealth countries to contribute much to the War in Europe (including supplies and raw materials).

It's also an open question to me what happens between Russia and Japan. I don't think Japan would have attempted a serious gambit against Russia until they had the situation in China far more settled (IF they ever would have been able to get it settled). However, Russia certainly was very concerned over that. It wasn't until after Pearl Harbor that the Soviets made a serious diversion of thier Siberian forces to Europe. Those forces arrived at a critical time in the Battle for Russia. One has to wonder whether the Soviets would have diverted them without US War Entry...and when....and what that delay might have meant to the War in Europe.

- The Air War in Europe. While Britain did effectively win the air war in Western Europe without our combat involvement and was conducting night bombing raids on Germany on thier own, I don't think it's debatable that the presence of USAAF forces in the Theatre raised the intensity of that fight by an order of magnitude.

It's often been the subject of debate as to how much the bombing campaigns and air war contributed toward victory in Europe. It's true that Germany managed to increase it's production despite the bombing campaigns. However, I wonder how much more it's production might have been without them. It's also true that Germany devoted considerable resources to it's air defence...both in terms of fighters and Flak.

- The Second Front. While it's true that the War in the East had already turned a corner before the establishment of the Second Front. Germany devoted a significant number of resources to defending Western Europe from invasion and performing anti-partisan duties. Although the lions share of ground forces were commited to the East. US/British/Can landings in North Africa, Sicily and Italy and ultimately France DID tie up some very effective German Combat troops. The Eastern Front was a bloody enough affair and closely fought in so many key battles, that I DO have to wonder what would have happaned if the Axis could have deployed thier full combat strength there.

And please don't forget all the spam in a can that we gave England and Russia so they could eat!! I read something to the effect of 25million cans to England alone.

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.

As for the results - certainly a longer war if nothing else. Possibly even an axis victory again depending how both Germany and Japan handled the war with Russia. Japan in particular may have been able to make large gains even if Germany were defeated.
Also when you "take America out of WW2" how completely do we mean. Just direct military involvement or no aid and equipment to anyone? No trucks, supplies or aid of any type and it changes the picture dramtically even on the Russian front.

Edit - must have been writing at same time and just saw the good Bamilus post. Also what I was referring to on US aid. And speak of bearing the brunt and having to deal with a "two front war" The US had both Europe and the Pacific with the brunt of the pacific effort having to be on them. This is not of course taking anything away from the efforts of the Brits, Australians, Phillipinos and others who so bravely fought and died in that theater. Russia for the most part stayed out of the Pacific war until they really weren't needed anyway. No doubt of course that the number loss and suffering of the Russian population was staggering. In the end, Hitler like Napoleon, made the mistake of invading Russia without being ready for all contingencies. The US involvement was one of those.

Hitler thought a quick campaign in Russia and then take on the Americans. So I think he knew war with America could happen.

I read something to the effect of 25million cans to England alone

you are forgiven....

ORIGINAL: axisandallies
Hitler thought a quick campaign in Russia and then take on the Americans. So I think he knew war with America could happen.

Yes, he thought he could beat the Russians quickly, he thought he would also then be able to take care of the Brits. He didn't plan the contingencies of a long war with Russia nor properly prepare for the US to be in the war before he was ready. Just knowing that war with America could happen is different from being prepared for all contingencies. But you are certainly correct that he knew war with America could happen. Maybe he even planned that it would happen in the long run when he was ready.

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

ORIGINAL: axisandallies
Hitler thought a quick campaign in Russia and then take on the Americans. So I think he knew war with America could happen.

Yes, he thought he could beat the Russians quickly, he thought he would also then be able to take care of the Brits. He didn't plan the contingencies of a long war with Russia nor properly prepare for the US to be in the war before he was ready. Just knowing that war with America could happen is different from being prepared for all contingencies. But you are certainly correct that he knew war with America could happen. Maybe he even planned that it would happen in the long run when he was ready.

you are right that he didn't plan he contingencies......You would have thought that a plan "B" would be in place if Moscow was not taken in 1941. On a side note, I see you are from Wisconsin, are you a big ten fan? If so I look forward to the battle of the big red's with you and Nebraska.

ORIGINAL: Punk Reaper

I read something to the effect of 25million cans to England alone

you are forgiven....

you are to kind.

During the Moscow offensive in winter 1941, Russians have less tanks than USA send them in Lend Lease.
So I think that explains a lot.

ORIGINAL: Bamilus


People like to paint America First and Charles Lindbergh as "fascists", a laughable statement. I don't think America should have entered the war (until we got attacked, obviously). We got dragged into WW1 and that did nothing for us.

How was the US dragged into WWI?

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Bamilus


People like to paint America First and Charles Lindbergh as "fascists", a laughable statement. I don't think America should have entered the war (until we got attacked, obviously). We got dragged into WW1 and that did nothing for us.

How was the US dragged into WWI?

I don't think the US as dragged into WWI, but they where strongly goated by England and France.

I see.........

I don't think the US as dragged into WWI, but they where strongly goated by England and France.

How?

ORIGINAL: axisandallies

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Wodin - I wouldn't bother replying m8 - he's got an agenda and by replying specifically, his little devious wee plan is working.

This is not true. What gets me about the brits is this.....They are more than happy to affend you, but in return of being offended themselfs, well this is an outcry!!! You become petty. It's alright to call American's rebel's, it's alright to downplay America's role in both World Wars, It's alright to accept 50 billion in aid to fight those wars and never pay it back......It's alright...................

There is no doubt that Lend Lease and the massive production capacity of the US did wonders for ther UK war effort. The cost involved were staggering, so staggering that we only finished paying for it in 2006.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6215847.stm

Cheers

Jev