"Where Europe would be today had the US not intervened in WW2" Spare me!!!

@Carking the 6th

@SamPGS_17

What are you waffling on about mate? Genuinely what is your point here

Average Fr*nchman

freaking disgusting

Honesty, sure! Germany still would have lost, because the Soviets would have occupied all of Europe, while the commonwealth could barely hope to maybe secure Fr*nce, Africa and the Lowlands. With no nukes and the US doing nothing, the Union could then easily create borders like Eurasia from 1984 with very little resistance, all while also still taking all of Asia from Japan as well. Red world.

Not really, but the Soviets would definitely be stronger and there wouldn’t be much to resist them.

keni010 wrote:

Please spare me! The only reason The US got involved in WW2 (it had long declared its neutrality!) was that one of the 3 Axis Powers (Japan) bombed Pearl Harbor! This happened on 7 Dec 1941 ... The US came to Europe (Belfast) Jan 26 1942 and first became involved in the conflict in Africa in 1942. The Battle of Britain had already been fought and won by the British and her many allies ... this battle began in mid 1940.

The British and her allies, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians, South Africans etc., etc. ... were doing fine against the Germans and would have been successful when fighting Germany without any US help, but it was of course, still very welcome ... and brought about by Pearl Harbor ... not because of any US love for Europe!

So please take down your insulting picture showing Germany occupying all of Europe "had it not been for America!" That is rubbish!

Dude, I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. It’s your first post, so I’m assuming that you probably went on the wrong forum.

keni010 wrote:

Please spare me! The only reason The US got involved in WW2 (it had long declared its neutrality!) was that one of the 3 Axis Powers (Japan) bombed Pearl Harbor! This happened on 7 Dec 1941 ... The US came to Europe (Belfast) Jan 26 1942 and first became involved in the conflict in Africa in 1942. The Battle of Britain had already been fought and won by the British and her many allies ... this battle began in mid 1940.

The British and her allies, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians, South Africans etc., etc. ... were doing fine against the Germans and would have been successful when fighting Germany without any US help, but it was of course, still very welcome ... and brought about by Pearl Harbor ... not because of any US love for Europe!

So please take down your insulting picture showing Germany occupying all of Europe "had it not been for America!" That is rubbish!

They probably would have, since the Soviets were forcing Germany to pull more forces from the Atlantic line in order to reinforce the rapidly deteriorating Eastern front, but it would have been far later and weaker. The invasion of Italy may have not been possible, even if the British wanted to, they may have not had enough force. I’m assume Japan still attacks the US here? If so, the war would go somewhat the same there, with the Japanese being obliterated but even faster since the US can focus all on one front.

Even if Japan attacks the Soviets and America stays completely neutral, without American oil Japan would not really be able to use their tanks, having to focus what little they had on their fleet for attacking South East Asia. There they would have some way better with no US, but Geography would probably lock them in Siberia, Myanmar and Indonesia, with deeper parts of the USSR, India and Australia being unreachable and China ever more untouchable. As important as Siberian forces may have seemed, Germany was already overstretched by the time they reached Moscow. They only did it with sort of mobile unsupported forces, think like when you capture a bunch of rural provinces in the game with a light tank and have to stop before a defended city. The Soviets probably could have held. Considering the fact that almost all of lend lease arrived after 1942, with Stalingrad being dealt with and the Soviet industry still being fine, the USSR would have most likely crushed the Germans like our timeline anyway. They were not as close to losing in real life as we may have thought, definitely still able to win the war, holding Japan with say 100,000 (very small in a war of millions, won’t effect the long term) soldiers so they can’t advance farther than Vladivostok, while advancing at a slower but still moving pace into Germany.

As the war gets more desperate for the Germans, similar actions like pulling most western forces to hold the USSR off would take place. Eventually the commonwealth could probably move in and liberate perhaps France, Norway and the lowlands, maybe Italy, but the rest would all very likely fall into Soviet hands. If the USSR wishes, they could definitely simply move in and kick the allies out of Europe, though they probably wouldn’t considering their exhaustion. Then Japan would be turned to and ultimately kicked out of Asia, and over the course of a few see its fleet and country bombed into oblivion, invaded by the allies and occupied. This would be like d-day, taking much preparation and creation of an actual landing force, but it would be done, costing both sides millions, and leading to the emperor most certainly being executed by the USSR, and his country in ruins.

Depending on how weak the USSR is after this, they could kick the allies out of Europe and have some level of dominance over Eurasia, but the extended war would give America an advantage in a Cold War thanks to more damage to the Soviets. On the other hand, the huge economic boost, female empowerment and experienced military gained from the war, all of which would give the US a long term advantage would not be there. Interesting stuff.

i guess some people forgot about usa aid for allies and soviets. About 50 billions worth of supplies was shipped (imagine numbers in todays economy, because of inflation), most of it to UK, but about 11 bilions was sended to soviet union. No usa aid = no europe. Wlcome to Third Reich land.

But the USA was already involved. The Flying Tigers come into mind. And if Japan invaded Indonesia without pearl harbour, USA would've done it's own attack on Japan.

Without the USA Japan would be occupying Papua new Guinea. Without the materiel Britain and Soviet Union would be under greater strain. People forget that Japan, Germany and Italy actually held more industrial power than the USSR and Britain at the time.

Yeah, The Soviets and Chinese gave their most in terms of lives. And they provided the most manpower. And I would dislike if their sacrifices are forgotten (due to hatred against their current regime) but there is no reason to put down the American involvement too.

You are making a hypothetical argument and becoming angry

Thank you

We are talkng soviets in europe, without american resources, the soviets would have collapsed we have to face it

No. Lend lease only reached the USSR in real numbers in 1943 and after, the Soviets had won in Stalingrad until then. While it would have been harder Germany simply did not have the resources or manpower to actually defeat and especially occupy the Soviets.

Exactly, Harder, the Soviets may have handed over the Baltics and Ukraine in exchange for reparations and peace

They wouldn’t have. Remember that this is a war of extermination, the Germans NEVER would accept a partial victory; they would go for total conquest (and annihilation). The same is for Stalin and the Soviets who are getting genocided by a fanatical regime that literally broke a treaty to attack them. The Germans and Soviets would fight to the death, and chances are the Soviets would always come out on top.

Assuming Zhukov didn't shoot Stalin and Stauffenberg succeeded

I think peace might have been probable eventually. Realpolitik you know.

Carking the 6th wrote:

No. Lend lease only reached the USSR in real numbers in 1943 and after, the Soviets had won in Stalingrad until then. While it would have been harder Germany simply did not have the resources or manpower to actually defeat and especially occupy the Soviets.

TheZhukov wrote:

I think peace might have been probable eventually. Realpolitik you know.

NOBODY would accept peace.

Everybody in the Union knew any peace would mean surrendering their own family to extermination and slavery. Over a thousand Byelorussian villages were exterminated, Ukraine was decimated. 30 million civilians were killed by a nation that spent more resources in genocide than actual military production.

Yes, it was a very small percentage though. I believe 84% of US aid came after 1942, by then the war had turned against the Germans. The whole of lend lease only made up 7% of resources, so losing 2-3% wouldn’t change much in the first years, let alone the entire war.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#U.S._deliveries_to_the_Soviet_Union