Could the Axis have won the war if there was no US intervention

I've always wondered and /v/ is talking about the new battlefield game and discussing this topic.
Could the Germans have won the war if the US was not involved in the war? Let's say they didn't economically sanction the Japs, because that's the main reason of their involvement.
Come on, Veeky Forums, get WILD!

Other urls found in this thread:

thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=11168&pageid=&pagename=
internalcombustionbook.com/gmandthenazis.php
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/gm.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_General_Motors#Nazi_collaboration
jmss.org/jmss/index.php/jmss/article/view/236/251
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyers_for_Bases_Agreement
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Purchasing_Commission
operationbarbarossa.net/the-siberian-divisions-and-the-battle-for-moscow-in-1941-42/
histrf.ru/uploads/media/default/0001/12/df78d3da0fe55d965333035cd9d4ee2770550653.pdf
amazon.com/dp/1594203296?tag=lewrockwell&camp=213381&creative=390973&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=1594203296&adid=0WGBD5BFA99BXFRV174K&&ref-refURL=http://www.lewrockwell.com/?post_type=article&p=467705&preview=true
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I don't think so. American Lend & Lease was a non factor in the early Soviet victories. Which I think were ultimately key to that front. Britain had both beaten off the Germans in the Battle of Britain and turned the tide in the Battle of the Atlantic well before American entry into the war with new transport tactics and equipment. At that point Germany is facing a long war against two powers with a noticeably higher industrial capacity. At the same time, American efforts on the non-Eastern fronts cannot be ignored, so I imagine a longer war overall with a much slower and minimalized Western Allied advances. Still some involvement, mind you, as the British were active in Africa and provided half the troops for D-Day. Maybe the Soviets get to take the entirety of Germany some three or four years down the road?

The US was already very much involved in the war before Pearl Harbor. It was Roosevelt's policy to support Europe's democracies against fascist aggression. He worked assiduously to find any way around Congress's Neutrality Acts to shore up Britain against Germany. The lend-lease act took place when the US was still a non-belligerent but it was decidedly NON-NEUTRAL. Roosevelt was determined to see the weight of the US thrown behind the Allies one way or another. The US had already declared a massive chunk of Atlantic waters to be under its protection (a deliberate 'fuck you' to German U-boat operations on British shipping), without Pearl Harbor maybe they just engineer some kind of incident in the Atlantic as a casus belli.

well, that means ...

- without the early US supplies to UK?
- and later later land-lease?
- all the supplies to USSR?
- without any military answer to the attack of Pearl Harbour?

SURE!

- without the early US supplies to UK?
- and later later land-lease?
- all the supplies to USSR?
With those. I failed to mention that.
We're talking without the Americans actively participating in the war, military wise. I don't how to properly construct that sentence.

Of course not

Well, theoritically if Japan did not start a war with the US, could they've shifted their war effort from China towards the soviets and helped the Germans? I mean non-agression pacts or whatever they had with the USSR don't always work in wars. I mean when situation was getting dire for the Axis, the Japanese couldn't help them, because they were already in a clinch.

The Soviets in the east grew by some crazy amount even after Barbarossa. As in, even though they had pulled some troops westwards, they still had... shit, I can't remember the numbers now. I think in 1941 alone they doubled the number of men in the far east to like a million and a half.

I thought we were talking about "... if the US was not involved in the war" - well, sending ships, weapons, supplies and food without getting paid is a very strong active involvement in a war in my opinion.

Yeah, but the US was also selling oil to the Japs, we're not removing that factor in our hypothetical scenario, because that's the reason Japs attacked the US, the oil.

If you assume the US wouldn't be involved industrialy as well, then I think a German victory would have been a very likely outcome. If you only account for the military actions of the US then I believe the allies still would have won, but with a longer war and more Soviet dominated Europe as a result.

It would have changed the German strategy after 1941. After the American entry into the war, Hitler was desperate to beat the Soviet Union with a final blow in order to be able to relocate most of his troops to the West to protect "fortress Europe" from the Americans. So it's possible that the simultaneous madman drive towards Stalingrad and the Caucasus which exposed their flanks wouldn't have happened the way it did. Instead they could have followed a more cautious strategy. In the first half of 1942, the Germans were still able to repell Soviet offensives causing high losses for the enemy (Kharkov, Leningrad, Kerch, Rzhev) so a defensive strategy in the East might have put them in a good position for negotiations. After all, it would have been difficult for the British to invade Europe all alone, too. Probably no chance of winning though.

Remember Armygroup "Middle" was already at the outskirts of the russian capital city. The russian eastern flank wasn´t threatened by the axis anymore (Japan waged war with the US or all signs to do so) thus enabled a large amount of reserves for the Red Army to get in an advantage.

In my opion, again, without any supplies from the western allies to russia, and of course the psychological effect of help, the Wehrmacht would have crushed into Moscow with horrible consequences. And btw beeing outnumberd wasn´t a problem for the German Army to get along with. The causalties of the russians were unbelievable high, I think 20-25 millions!

germany wouldn't even have a slightly chance against the soviets alone.

the manpower/industrial capacity/resources of germany were just way to low.

War is not about having a super duper tiger tank or sexy ss uniforms.

Wars are rarely won on battlefield they are won in factories and on railroads.

Someone once said: "amateurs talk about tactics and strategy professionals talk about logistics"

he was damn right

you realize that they didn't even enter Moscow right?

They were not even close to conquer Moscow Leningrad or Stalingrad.

They got some open land on the west of russia that was expected and the russians "fought with their land" intentionally.

This "they almost beat the russians" meme is just bullshit.

>In my opion, again, without any supplies from the western allies to russia, and of course the psychological effect of help, the Wehrmacht would have crushed into Moscow with horrible consequences. And btw beeing outnumberd wasn´t a problem for the German Army to get along with. The causalties of the russians were unbelievable high, I think 20-25 millions!

20-25 millions ?

Are you fucking high?

Educate yourself about ww2 before you open your mouth thank you.

Btw even If they conquered Moscow it wouldn't win the war for them.

Remember what happend to Napoleon when he conquerd moscow ?

Right the russians didn't give a shit and pushed him back.

Even If you conquer Stalingrad+Moscow+Leningrad you barely conquerd 1/10 of russia.

1/10 of Russia. Are you fucking high? If you've pushed that far you've already conquered like half the Russian population. Who gives a fucking about some pieces of tundra in Siberia.

didnd´t say they almost beat ...

but Soviets alone vs Axis without US beeing involved, and UK complete isolated

well since you can move the population and factories your argument is invalid.

look at a map
then educate yourself
then use your tiny biased wherboo brain

then talk to me again mate

As a historian who read about 120 books about wars in the 15-20th century, I am very confident in my view.

Thank you

btw I am german so no I am not biased against them just bc I am a butthurt slav or something.

soviets vs axis ?

that would mean Japan + Germany vs SU then ofc.

But this concept is highly imaginary.

Why would the whole world watch the axis take over the world.

All these what if concepts are bullshit and can not be examined in a scientific way.

It's like philosophy of history imho bullshit.

Lets just face it Poland was a Joke and France was a quite easy win BUT they let the expiditionary corps escape.

North Africa was lost.

They managed to capture a tiny part of the soviet union and didn't manage to capture a single of the important cities of the SU.

The whole wherboo fetish is annoying and driven by history channel waffen ss porn.

Sokolov, Boris - released studies in March 1996 "The cost of war: Human losses for the USSR and Germany, 1939–1945" also in >"The Journal of Slavic Military Studies" claimed: "... total losses in the war, both civilians and military, at over 40 million ..." War is hell!

It was a World War and yet you're you're ignoring the half of the world.

No US involvement means Japan has free reign in the Pacific theatre and is able to provide aid to their European allies who are under somewhat less pressure.

>The russian eastern flank wasn´t threatened by the axis
Because they removed japs on that front themselves in 39 and then relocated freed up armies across the continent

If the worlds leading economic power wasn´t been involved in any way in the confict, UK had to withdraw sooner or later.

Then, without US and UK, SU would be alone against the Axis: Germany, Italy, Japan, Finland, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Thailand, Iraq ... and all client states.

I do also believe US wouldn´t just watch but nothing then would be like history was

The next scenario would be:
When would the war be over then?
What was the goal by the axis?
What is an "Endsieg"?

>They got some open land on the west of russia that was expected and the russians "fought with their land" intentionally.
This is bullshit to the highest degree. They didn't capture just "some open land" but one of the most densely populated parts of the country with roughly one third of the population and major agricultural, mining and industrial (Donetsk area) centers. And no, it wasn't given up intentionally at all, the Red Army would have retreated instead of getting encircled if that had been the case. Only during Case Blue the Soviets kinda "fought with their land" but even there Stalin was severely against tactical retreats in many cases and was eventually fed up and issued the "Not one step back"-order.

>he was damn right
How come you are so wong then?
The german logistics outperformed the soviet by far.
Without US support the british would have yielded to the Uboot blockade. Without Britain to fight in north africa and the americans in western europe the Germans could have dedicated more troops not only to break out the 40th in stalingrad and cut soviet support leaving the largest army of tanks the world had ever seen dead in its tracks.
Had the US not have gotten involved Germany would have filled the power vacuum that the british left we all know the US plugged.
Also its:
>Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics. - Gen. Robert H. Barrow
Making it clear you don't know the difference between tactics and strategy.

North Africa was lost at the moment when Operation Torch was launched (together with US already at war, with their troops, weapons and logistics) in the end of 42.

Not him, but as long as the industrial capacity of the USSR and its human reserve stays big, the nazis can win as many victories on the field without winning the war.
And the main difference between Germany and the soviets is that the Germans, being the racist idiots they were, refused to make use of the local populations in Ukraine or in other occupated territories because they were subhumans. Losing that, they only had their own germans and auxiliary troops from France, Sweden, and other occupated countries deemed worthy to fight with them but they're nowhere close to the capacity of the soviets.
They would fight a war of attrition where every fight would just reduce their capacity against an ennemy who shits men and tanks faster than you.
The german offensive in Russia was a failure because they couldn't reduce the industrial capacity of the soviets, only slightly with the moving of the factories to the east

Without lend lease there would have been a massive shortage of supplies all around.
Britian could have held on for a good long while, probably even pushed back a german land invasion, but Russia would have most likely caved due to lack of resources. It would have devolved into guerilla warfare east of Moscow.

What about the Japanese threat in the East? Wouldn't the industrial output and recruitment rates of both Germany and Japan be greater than Russia's?

>probably even pushed back a german land invasion
>probably
>>>>>>>>>>>>
there was no way in seven hells a german invasion would come anywhere close to succeeding

I don't know about the japanese. A lot of their troops were mobilized in China where they were completely embroiled. I really wonder what they would have decided to do, but I don't think they would have considered in their best interest to attack Russia.
They're on the eastern side, and they would have to go through all the continent to join forces with the wehrmacht. Seems like an awful waste of time and energy

The US were conducting anti-uboat operations before declaring war

That's not quite right about not using human resources in the east: whether you like to believe or not but more than one million Soviets served for the Wehrmacht even by having the Nazi-classification of races at that time, f.e. one quarter of 6th Army's front-line strength, were russian auxiliaries serving with the Germans.

As so called HiWis, Cossacks and other collaborateurs they generally formed up with the German divisions. And about 200.000 russians "worked" for the German police and the SD.

In the eastern legions a total of 71 battalions served on the Eastern Front, while 42 battalions served on the Western Front (!). One prominent and maybe forgotten one was The Russian Liberation Army, known also as the Vlasov army ...

Then don´t forget the other German army: the SS - the "blonde and blue eyed"-Ubermenschen had auxiliaries f.e. like the 1st Belarussian, 1st Russian SS Rona, the Schutzmannschaft-brigade „Siegling“ 2nd Russian SS, 14th SS (1st Galician), the Belarusian Home Defence ...

Sweden wasn´t much involved in WW2 btw.

That's interesting. Do you have any sources with precise number ? To put it in perspective. 200 000 men doesn't seem so much but it's not impossible that I am wrong about this

No Sweden was not much involved but it was just an exemple of country where the SS and the wehrmacht recruited auxiliaries, like the Charlemagne SS division in France

Butthurt slave detected

With any scenario which would have extended the life of Germany in the war, it becomes more likely that they could have successfully tested nuclear weapons. Use of atomic bombs by Germany would have made it possible to invade Britain and/or the Soviets and secure more resources.

no, the 200.000 were just in the police-units btw.

"... approximately another 800,000 to 1,000,000 voluntary assistants formed up within German units of the Wehrmacht primarily on the Eastern Front"
(M. V. Nazarov, The Mission of the Russian Emigration, Moscow, 1994. ISBN 5-86231-172-6)

... or search for "Hiwi (volunteer)" or "Trawniki men" or "Lithuanian Iron Wolf Association" or "Latvian Thunder Cross members" or "Eastern Legions" or "General Andrey Vlasov" ........

Thanks user

...

...

here, maybe one of the best nazi-voluntary-assistant pic from the balkans front

Once the USSR lost the Ukraine they were cut off from the majority of their agricultural production. Without it or Allied aid they would have had massive famines(even bigger than the ones they had even with US aid) and would have not been able to continue fighting.

... and also a nice Osttruppen-Nazi: Mykhailo Omelianovych-Pavlenko, the General of some Ukrainian units which later called themselves "Ukrainian Liberation Army" with about 80.000 members

Depends if they still embargo Japan, that was a key factor that drove them into the war.
If they don't, the Pacific theater would be dominated by Japan, with Britain and the Netherlands being severely strained with both fighting in Burma and Australia as well as in North Africa without any American help, which would have severely strained their supply's. Japan would also be able to potentially launch a major offensive into Russian Siberia, which would have been disasterous for the Soviets as their previously single front now becomes two fronts.

If we consider that, then it's likely that Moscow would have fallen and the USSR would be on the ropes until at earliest late 1943. The UK's manpower would be devastated and with having to face strong opposition on so many fronts, it would have to forfeit much of its empire. Ultimately, Nazi Germany and Japan would sign an armistice that, if not on favorable terms, would have at least given them white peace and allow the preservation of their empires.

>which would have been disasterous for the Soviets as their previously single front now becomes two fronts.
the results certainly were not disastrous for the Soviets the last time the two sides met
and they still had about 1.5 million troops in the east during Barbarossa
in the east where the only two objectives of note are Vladivostok and the trans-Siberian railroad

No

I'm just talking purely in strategic terms. Ultimately, the USSR would without a doubt survive an invasion from either side, it's resources and manpower were considerable, but at the cost of total victory and many more millions of soldiers. That's why I said armistice was the most likely result of such a conflict rather than victory for either side.

Yes.

They would have successfully blockaded the U.K., and could have fought the Soviets to a stand still.

The U.K. didn't have the industrial base to challenge a continental power, and the Germans could have simply employed their slave labor gangs to match anything the Soviets did.

Without U.S. involvement, ze Germans would have cleaned up all of Europe, and parts of Russia.

No.
Euros don't like to admit it but the US keeping Japan from making a second front for the USSR probably decided the war.
The guns helped but good luck with post-Pax Britannica UK and the USSR actually holding the Pacific theater while fighting Germany.

There's no point in threads like this. It's literally anti-history. May as well discuss the dynamics and variables of the War of the Five Kings.

>Japan invading siberia
Ignoring the oil shortages they were suffering which is huge deal in itself Japan had nowhere near enough logistical equipment to attempt invading siberia. Not to mention that the soviets had a big enough army in siberia too hold them back for a while even if they through use of the brightest and best wizards of Japan summoned the oil and trucks needed to invade.

>Not him, but as long as the industrial capacity of the USSR and its human reserve stays big, the nazis can win as many victories on the field without winning the war.

simply not true

Not him, but he's right. A Japanese attack from the East would almost certainly be repulsed in short order, and wouldn't make any real difference to what's going on on the main front.

Especially since Siberia's principal strategic import was the Lend-Lease corridor, which under this hypothetical we're assuming doesn't exist. You don't hit anything important until past Irkutsk from the east, and I'd like to see the Japanese advance over the one railroad that exists in the area while the Soviets tear it up behind them (again, making the stretch assumption that the Japanese can advance at all)

>They would have successfully blockaded the U.K.

With 4 BB and what? 6 CA? Good luck with that.

>could have fought the Soviets to a stand still.

Possibly, but that's a long way of winning.

>The U.K. didn't have the industrial base to challenge a continental power,

Which is how it managed to outproduce Germany in artillery, machine guns, planes, and holy fuck ships.

>and the Germans could have simply employed their slave labor gangs to match anything the Soviets did.

Yes, it's almost like the production bottleneck was raw materials, not labor like it was for the Allies.

>Without U.S. involvement, ze Germans would have cleaned up all of Europe, and parts of Russia.

You are now aware that Russia is traditionally considered part of Europe.

> The guns helped but good luck with post-Pax Britannica UK and the USSR actually holding the Pacific theater while fighting Germany.

Ever hear of Khalkin Gol? Are you seriously implying that the Japanese had a couple of million spare troops to attack actually important places like India and Australia and somehow overcome the border force in Siberia?

Agreed. Japan's power was their navy and Airforce. Siberia would've been a colossal waste of resources, and it would've taken them months to reach anything of value without resistance, let alone against stubborn soviet defenders. Japan was no threat to the Sovies.

OP, it is entirely unrealistic to assume that the US wouldn't have provided at the least material aid to the Allies. Without American boots, the war would've taken longer and a harder toll on the world economy, but the allies could've still come out on top. Germany and Japan wouldn't withstand the industrial capacity of the USSR and UK backed by US industry.

If you mean American military intervention, then no, it really didn't matter to the overall course of the war apart from limiting soviet influence.

If you mean American supply operations throughout the war, then still no, although the Soviets would have suffered more casualties and probably more defeats as a result.

>US was already very much involved in the war

indeed they basically created the nacho war machine

>General Motors and Ford creates the motorized nazi war machine
>IBM partners with nazis to efficiently run the extermination of millions in Europe with IBM systems
>The Carnegie Institution and its sponsored movement spent millions to propagate American eugenic theories in post-WWI Germany, financing race science programs in universities and official institutions. These included the idea that Jews must be eliminated.
>Rockefeller funded Hitler’s chief raceologist Otmar Verschuer and his insatiable twin experimentation programs.


thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=11168&pageid=&pagename=
internalcombustionbook.com/gmandthenazis.php
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/gm.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_General_Motors#Nazi_collaboration

>With 4 BB and what? 6 CA? Good luck with that.

The U-boat fleet could have completely isolated the U.K. had it not been for sheer volume of U.S. convoys, and their escorts.

Who is going to supply the U.K., if not the U.S.? Canada? Australia? No, without the U.S., U.K. imports pretty much cease to exist.

>Which is how it managed to outproduce Germany in artillery, machine guns, planes, and holy fuck ships.

And where did they find the raw materials for all that shit on their little islands?

>You are now aware that Russia is traditionally considered part of Europe.

Hence the inclusion of "all of Europe".

The bottom line is that the allied forces got their asses handed to them up until the U.S. got involved full scale with logistics and combat power. Without the millions of tons of logistics being convoyed to the U.K. and the Soviets, and the need for Imperial Japan to focus on defending the Pacific, the Germans would have won the conventional war outright.

>The U-boat fleet could have completely isolated the U.K. had it not been for sheer volume of U.S. convoys, and their escorts.

Complete bullshit. Even in the darkest days of the U-boat attacks, they couldn't actually stop UK arms production efforts, let alone starve them into submission.

jmss.org/jmss/index.php/jmss/article/view/236/251

It also, by the way, contains information on the rather voluminious amount of raw material coming into the UK from Canada, as well as their other Atlantic possessions (the Guyanas supplied a surprising amount of material)

>And where did they find the raw materials for all that shit on their little islands?

They got the materials from their imperial possessions. Have you forgotten places like South Africa, Canada, the access they got to the Belgian Congo what with Germany attacking Belgium?

>The bottom line is that the allied forces got their asses handed to them up until the U.S. got involved full scale with logistics and combat power. Without the millions of tons of logistics being convoyed to the U.K. and the Soviets, and the need for Imperial Japan to focus on defending the Pacific, the Germans would have won the conventional war outright.


Yes, the U.S. supplied a lot of crap, but in neither case of the Soviets nor the British did it rise above the stuff that they domestically produced.

The types of assets that the Japanese used to defend the Pacific were not readily convertible to offensive assets to embark on difficult land campaigns throughout Asia. Furthermore, without American sanctions, it's extremely unlikely Japan would have even gotten involved in such places, and would rather tried to have focus on getting somewhere in China.

The Germans were in no position to ever win the conventional war outright, because they lacked means to bring down the UK as well as the Soviets. Insufficiency of naval means for the former, and their own logistical issues even overland for the latter.

what about the lend lease?

i mean soviets where already kicking ass and taking names before the muricans landed in france

> turned the tide in the Battle of the Atlantic well before American entry into the war with new transport tactics and equipment.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyers_for_Bases_Agreement

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Purchasing_Commission

For the second part there was some not small support from the US federal government for it. Other countries with war time order of weapons (like Sweden) had their orders frozen and were barred from placing more orders during the war. Because it was viewed as breaking neutrality.

>Even If you conquer Stalingrad+Moscow+Leningrad you barely conquerd 1/10 of russia.
>well since you can move the population and factories your argument is invalid.
Are you an idiot or what?
Why do so many people here do not understand even some basics of geography, economy and logistics?

Jesus christ its another hour of Veeky Forums desperately trying not to be /pol/ and ending up just as autistic. Wehraboos i trash i fully agree but try to be realistic and objective for a second. If we only talk about military involvment the soviets mostl likely would have won thats true BUT claiming that without any US involvment at all the UDSSR would have won is bullshit.

To adress the most important points.

>hurr durr ze soviets had 1.5 million soldiers in the east
True dat. With actual large scale fighting against the Japs they would have needed a shit ton of supply to hold the front. Supplies and war materials that therefore couldn´t be used against the wehrmacht.

>le most of the lend and lease arived after le stalingrad disaster
Also true BUT a lot of successfull soviet operations ,we deem rightly as decisive for the war, were only conducted because the soviets were certain to recieve nearly unlimited ammounts of suppy from the US. That means we have no friggin clue how the soviets would act after stopping the german advance.

>ze weapons the commies recieved weren´t so important ultimately
Also true but just look at all the food, high octane fuel, special machine parts, trucks etc. the soviets recieved. Without all of this we have a starving SU population who has to invest a vast ammount of its industrial power to build trucks, locomotives etc. while having a much higher demand for ammunition etc. All of this while lacking the friggin 56% of high octane fuel the americans supplied. Against a germany that can divert all of its air power to the east while having enough time to develop jet propulsion. Also the airforce needs to be divided between the jia and the wehrmacht.

Not to mention the completly different psychological and political situation.

Oh and i forgot to mention that germany in this scenario isn´t relentlessly pounded by strategic bombing and most likely has better access to the ressources it needs. Also there is no british lend and lease cause they would be in even deeper shit without US help.

September 2, 1940
December 1940
Exactly, well before American entry into the war.

I think OP was also taking about murica not sending lend and lease.

Without doubt the UK has been an invincible enemy of Nazi-Germany, defied them as the only one for the whole time of the war from the beginning in September 1939 until the end in August 45. And even turned the tide not just in the battle of the atlantic or the air battles...

But without ANY involvement or support of the US or finally the US at war as an allied in all theatres, as the purely hypothetical question in this thread is, the second world war would have been different in many ways.

Then it´s of course hard to say, if there would be simple said a winner, if there would be ever an end.

Maybe the fears we all had in the cold war times of a complete obliteration of mankind by new weapons of mass destruction would have taken place? Because at the climax and to the end of WW2 no one was able to end the war in a kind of consens nor peace.

And btw. today it is highly arrogant to claim any action which took place at ww2 - no matter on which side - was a kind of easy pray, especially for those who wasn´t even born at that time!

These are all in the independent capacities of private citizens/corporations. Not official government policy like Roosevelt's support for the allies.

In a complete vacuum without the US a Russia definitely is forced to sue for peace to avoid mass starvation. The UK would be unable to break into Fortress Europe as well, and no power would be able to make an atomic bomb before 1950. Assuming the US is just a non factor is unrealistic though.
Without Anerican military assets but with Anerican industrial output the Allies still win. The lack of Western troops tying up 40% of the Whermact (likely about 20-25% would still be deployed to stop English landings) would be counterbalanced a little since the UK and USSR would receive even MORE aid than they already did.

The lack of a strong bombing campaign, the lack of the majority of the Luftwaffe being tied up on air patrol, and the larger amounts of men the Germans can call on undoubtably prolong the war months, maybe even a year. Perhaps even two, and if it drags on that long peace is probably achieved because the USSR and Germany would both be completely depleted by then.

>capitalism is ruled by private enterprise

government is merely used to enforce capitalism

the fact is political leaders and captains of industry are one and the same. there is no separation of government and business. the businessmen are the politicians.

and remember the private British East India company went to conquer India (as a capitalist enterprise)

tl;dr corporations are a front for empire

Yes.

Nazi Germany would not have managed to conquer Russia, but they would have likely pushed their border further eastwards and would then enter peace negotiations at some point.

It would be technically a stale-mate but a de-facto victory for Nazi Germany.

Yes. This implies a scenario where Asia is ultimately pacified, China eventually submits and Russia is now forced to chew between the Pacific Cooperation Sphere, the Greater German Reich in Europe. African offensives by the Allies grind to a halt and Italy is still in the game because Husky never happened.

If the US didn't get involved, the Nazi Empire would've self destructed if no one got rid of Hitler.

There is no way he could've sustained what he had going. If he stopped after failing to take Britain, and solidified his holdings, and gave up on expansion, then he would've gone somewhere. The second he tried to take Russia, he doomed himself. After failing to take Britain, he should've came to terms with the fact that he had seen the peak of his Empire in his lifetime. but hitler wasn't smart, or a historian. he was a charismatic orator.

Rebellion was literally a step away. War couldn't have continued forever. Rebellion would have been inevitable.

Without US intervention, Europe would have ended up worse than the current Middle East.

Most likely you are right. I think the polit bureau would have deposed stalin at some point trying to sue for peace. The germans most likely wouldn´t have accepted in the first place but at some point would have accepted due to beeing not able to push on further and rising losses.

Bullshit. He wouldn´t have needed to take britain. Remember that Japan is able to take out the british because most british forces are bound in europe and africa. GB would have sued for peace or at the very least would have to ensure massive problems without the colonial ressources. The soviets wouldn´t be able to stop germany and japan on steroids ganging up on them without any international help whatsoever.

> I think the polit bureau would have deposed stalin at some point trying to sue for peace.

They didn't when it looked like the country was going to fall and the Germans were at the gates of Moscow. You're vastly underestimating the strength of Stalin's grip.

> Remember that Japan is able to take out the british because most british forces are bound in europe and africa.

Remember that Japan only attacked Britain becuase they were buddy buddy with the U.S. And that the bulk of Britain's colonial trade came from the west coast of Africa and Canada, far away from the Japanese grip. Yeah, they probably could have severely disrupted stuff from India and Australia, but that's it, and that's assuming they go to war with the Brits.

>. The soviets wouldn´t be able to stop germany and japan on steroids ganging up on them without any international help whatsoever.

>Japan
>Relevant at all in fighting Russia.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You want the Japanese to overrun at the very least Malaya and Rabul, and make incursions into Australia, New Zealand, and India if you want to "Cut off the colonial resources", and while still embroiled in China. And you want to open a 4th/5th front against the people who spanked you hard in 1938? To conquer some tundra wasteland?

>They didn't when it looked like the country was going to fall and the Germans were at the gates of Moscow. You're vastly underestimating the strength of Stalin's grip.
At some point they would have. You said it yourself AT THE GATES thats completly different from moscow captured and the SU in a worse political situation than OTL.

>Remember that Japan only attacked Britain becuase they were buddy buddy with the U.S. And that the bulk of Britain's colonial trade came from the west coast of Africa and Canada, far away from the Japanese grip. Yeah, they probably could have severely disrupted stuff from India and Australia, but that's it, and that's assuming they go to war with the Brits.

You have literally answered the question yourself. The Japs would be able to severly disrupt the shiping lanes from india etc. even if they wouldn´t capture the colony with troops. BUT there is no reason to not do it, the ammount of ships, planes and troops GB could commit to asia would be in no way able to stop them without leaving europe and africa dangerously exposed. As you said yourself exposing africa is no real option either. So try to understand the situation the brits are in now: Japan is gleefully dismantling their colonial empire while they are facing a seemingly unstoppable reich that just kicked the shit out of them in france. With no US help in sight do you really think they would have indefinetly fought on while their fucking empire is rotting/taken away from them. Heck the indians probably would have revolted themselves at some poin in TTL because britain simply wouldn´t be able to stop them.

2/2

>You have no idea what you're talking about. You want the Japanese to overrun at the very least Malaya and Rabul, and make incursions into Australia, New Zealand, and India if you want to "Cut off the colonial resources", and while still embroiled in China. And you want to open a 4th/5th front against the people who spanked you hard in 1938? To conquer some tundra wasteland?

After creating their asian soi the japs simply would attack the SU do to the widly held believe in 1941 that the germans would mop the floor with them. The rationale would be similiar to mussolinis : Getting a seat on the negotiation table to get some valuable land/tribute from the SU.

And again, i know that the japs probably would have performed really bad BUT without US help and a britain neutralized or in very bad shape the strain of a second front could have paved the way for a GERMAN victory. The japs simply prevent the soviets from using critical supply against the wehrmacht.

I might accept the objection that the japanese did not held that believe due to khalkin gol though BUT with the asian ressources they also would be able to field an army thats actually suited for warfare against the SU.

The u boats never got close to a 'blockade' and the brits turned the tide before the us got involved. 50% of troops on d day were brits too.

The war in europe could have been won without the US but would have taken longer and mean a bigger USSR.

The US had its true impact in the Pacific. But even there the biggest land based defeats the IJA suffered were to commenwealth forces in Burma.

They had their heavy water production destroyed several times by SOE and the RAF. They wouldn't necessarily have got weapons before the UK or USSR.

A lot of UK scientists joined the manhatten project under the agreement that the results would be shared. The US changed its mind snd the UK became the third country to build the bomb.

They probably would have got it before the german's,

>At some point they would have.

And you know this how?

> You said it yourself AT THE GATES thats completly different from moscow captured and the SU in a worse political situation than OTL.


And what makes you think that even in a weaker position, Moscow would have fallen? Germany was at the end of their supply tether trying to reach Moscow, and were badly understrength even as Typhoon began. The problems get worse, not better, as the war drags on longer.

>. The Japs would be able to severly disrupt the shiping lanes from india etc.

Which isn't "dismantling the colonial empire", it's blockading some colonies. Colonies, which I might add, arent' essential to the British war effort in Europe. Helpful, but not essential.

Your entire line of posting is based on wank and idiocy, not trying to realistically appraise a different situation, like HOW JAPAN PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE ATTACKED THE UK IN THE FIRST PLACE IF NOT FOR AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT.

There would be no "second front". 60,000 troops could have held Asia if they're willing to retreat to Irkutsk. Please look up a 1940 map of the railroad situation in the USSR to try to grasp how ridiculously unfeasible it is to mount some sort of mega, million man plus invasion.

The Japs would be irrelevant, a gnat biting at the Soviet back.

Don't forget that their aim was to build a reactor, Heisenberg got several calculations about the critical mass and other important things publicly wrong, and that they never even historically got to where the Americans got in 1942.

>And you know this how?
We are in alt history territory and my assumption is that a deposing of stalin after a string of even more serious defeats than otl is likely at some point. This assumption stems from the fact that stalin had a firm grip BUT was in no way loved as much as the führer before winning the great patriotic war.

>And what makes you think that even in a weaker position, Moscow would have fallen? Germany was at the end of their supply tether trying to reach Moscow, and were badly understrength even as Typhoon began. The problems get worse, not better, as the war drags on longer.

Even if i would agree with you about moscow you still have to see that without lend and lease the soviets have massive starvation in 1942/43. So in this TTL it gets worse for them to.


>Which isn't "dismantling the colonial empire", it's blockading some colonies. Colonies, which I might add, arent' essential to the British war effort in Europe. Helpful, but not essential.

>Your entire line of posting is based on wank and idiocy, not trying to realistically appraise a different situation, like HOW JAPAN PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE ATTACKED THE UK IN THE FIRST PLACE IF NOT FOR AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT.

WHY THE FUCK WOULDN´T JAPAN ATTACK? THE IDEOLOGY THEY FOLLOWED LITERALLY CALLED FOR A GREATER ASIAN SPHERE WHICH INVOLVED SHITLOADS OF BRITISH COLONIES ?

also: The colonies are very essential because try to justify a war that costs you your colonial empire and crown jewel of india while you only achieve defeats in europe and asia.


1/2

2/2

>There would be no "second front". 60,000 troops could have held Asia if they're willing to retreat to Irkutsk. Please look up a 1940 map of the railroad situation in the USSR to try to grasp how ridiculously unfeasible it is to mount some sort of mega, million man plus invasion.

>The Japs would be irrelevant, a gnat biting at the Soviet back.

So the Soviets stationed so many troops there for the lulz? Stalin was so worried about nothing that he waited for sorges conformation that the Japs wouldn´t attack until he pulled out elite troops of the eastern theatre (the ones essential in halting the german advance and mounting the counter offensive, which were replaced with green recruits) ? I am somewhat more inclined to trust soviet judgment than that of some shit posting armchair general...

>We are in alt history territory and my assumption is that a deposing of stalin after a string of even more serious defeats than otl is likely at some point. This assumption stems from the fact that stalin had a firm grip BUT was in no way loved as much as the führer before winning the great patriotic war.

Except that you've provided no context whatsoever to determine how much worse the "string of defeats" would be, or why it would affect Stalin's control of the secret police. Especially since most early Lend-Lease was British, not American, so differences probably wouldn't make themselves felt until mid 42 at least.

>Even if i would agree with you about moscow you still have to see that without lend and lease the soviets have massive starvation in 1942/43. So in this TTL it gets worse for them to.

No, all I've seen is one unsupported assertion that without the Ukraine the USSR was incapable of feeding itself. Show me, for instance, that the Ukraine produced more food than the Volga farms.

>WHY THE FUCK WOULDN´T JAPAN ATTACK?

Because they were already embroiled in a war, and most of those islands were worthless except as keeping airbases away from the parts that actually mattered. They also had significant trade with the UK and its dependents. Why start a fight? They literally did not attack the British until they started attacking the Americans. If they were so "ideologically driven" why not attack in 1939?

>So the Soviets stationed so many troops there for the lulz?

The Soviets stationed all those troops there to safeguard the lend-lease pipeline. Which we're positing doesn't exist anymore, remember?

> Stalin was so worried about nothing that he waited for sorges conformation that the Japs wouldn´t attack until he pulled out elite troops of the eastern theatre

Retard.

operationbarbarossa.net/the-siberian-divisions-and-the-battle-for-moscow-in-1941-42/

>Except that you've provided no context whatsoever to determine how much worse the "string of defeats" would be, or why it would affect Stalin's control of the secret police. Especially since most early Lend-Lease was British, not American, so differences probably wouldn't make themselves felt until mid 42 at least.

Sure GB would send lend and lease when they recieve no US lend and lease and have severe problems in asia.

>If they were so "ideologically driven" why not attack in 1939?
Because they were cautious of the US cause they were bugged down in china and only attacked when they desperatly needed the ressources. Against GB they could have scored naval supremacy early on without much consideration.

The situation is much worse in general, i am not saying stalin would be deposed in 1942 BUT without any lend and lease and 2 fronts (yeah yeah you don´t believe it) MASSIVE starvation would ensue and a lot of decisive soviet operations wouldn´t have happened without the certainty that the americans would send new weapons etc. Also lend and lease was more substantial than the sheer amount that was sent. Special machine parts etc. enabled the soviet industry and a loss of these things ( heavy octane fuel etc.) most certainly would hamper the industry way more than the sheer amount would make you believe.

>No, all I've seen is one unsupported assertion that without the Ukraine the USSR was incapable of feeding itself. Show me, for instance, that the Ukraine produced more food than the Volga farms.

What kind of meme argument is it to say : Were the Ukraine as productive as the Volga farms? How is that substantial to the question ? The soviets lost an important agricultural area and relied heavily on US support to feed its populace. Its estimated that 65 million people were feed by the ukrainian agriculture. Even if the soviets would have been able to compensate for these losses (how would they?) this would have had consequences for other war efforts.

>Retard.
No need to be rude club m8 i have drank the meme cool aid here but i am able to admit that i am in the wrong.

>The Soviets stationed all those troops there to safeguard the lend-lease pipeline. Which we're positing doesn't exist anymore, remember?

Which warranted so much attention? Must have been pretty substantial...

Also what about the faction in the IJA that warranted for expansion into the soviet union ? I also trust IJA senior generals more than i trust you ( not by a great margin though)

>Sure GB would send lend and lease when they recieve no US lend and lease and have severe problems in asia.

Sure they would. Russia's very important, to get a second front going, and you still haven't provided any reason why there would be a war in Asia, and most certainly not before it historically started.

>Because they were cautious of the US cause they were bugged down in china and only attacked when they desperatly needed the ressources.

[citation needed]

And with no U.S. involvement, you have no embargo, and you aren't "desperately needing resources".

>The situation is much worse in general, i am not saying stalin would be deposed in 1942 BUT without any lend and lease and 2 fronts (yeah yeah you don´t believe it) MASSIVE starvation would ensue

[citation needed]

>What kind of meme argument is it to say : Were the Ukraine as productive as the Volga farms? How is that substantial to the question ?

Because you're asserting that the Soviets would have starved in 1942-43, because of the loss of the Ukraine. Back up your fucking argument, which is doubly important because I've already demonstrated you factually wrong on several important points. Show that the Ukraine was agriculturally necessary.

> Its estimated that 65 million people were feed by the ukrainian agriculture.

Show that estimate then.

>Even if the soviets would have been able to compensate for these losses (how would they?) this would have had consequences for other war efforts.

Yeah, maybe without nearly unlimited fuel and supplies flowing in, they would have dropped their multi-axial attack retardation and come up with more efficient doctrines, the way the Germans found necessity to be the mother of invention.

Prove your fucking shit, or explain why I should find your made up crap any more persuasive than any other made up crap.

>Which warranted so much attention? Must have been pretty substantial...

But also mostly set up in 1943, when the existential danger had mostly passed.

>Also what about the faction in the IJA that warranted for expansion into the soviet union

You mean the one that was discredited after Khalkin Gol? How is the withdrawal of the Americas from the world stage going to put them back in power, and why aren't they likely to favor doubling down in China like they tried to advocate historically?

There is absolutely no way that the Axis could have lost without US involvement.

I was factually wrong about one important point. Dont inflate yourself.

>Yeah, maybe without nearly unlimited fuel and supplies flowing in, they would have dropped their multi-axial attack retardation and come up with more efficient doctrines, the way the Germans found necessity to be the mother of invention.

This is exactly the same kind of bullshit you imply i do. Just assuming lol nope they just would come up with a way to compensate is bullshit. Also the fucking purge robbed them of the personel that allowed the germans to be so innovative ( apart from the fact that germany had a better general staff and officer corps in the early war at least).

>Show that estimate then.
histrf.ru/uploads/media/default/0001/12/df78d3da0fe55d965333035cd9d4ee2770550653.pdf
Heavily biased pro russian author admitting how important the food shipments were. Just a quick google search don´t nail me down on this its 3 am in the morning here.

>
You mean the one that was discredited after Khalkin Gol? How is the withdrawal of the Americas from the world stage going to put them back in power, and why aren't they likely to favor doubling down in China like they tried to advocate historically?

How would China fare without US help? Would the Kuomintang have performed the same with no allied help whatsoever?

Britain and France persuade Belgium of the seriousness of this, and the likelihood of a German thrust when the weather gets good over Belgium.

Belgium mobilizes fully, and the British and French shorten their lines, and dig in behind the Maas and Dyle rivers. Fall Gelb as we know it never materializes, and Germany gets drawn into another WW1 style war because there's a solid line of trenches and fortifications and little room to maneuver, a war they're badly suited for against the larger populations and industrial bases of Britain and France.

But if there was no embargo there would be no Pacific theater.

>I was factually wrong about one important point.

Let's see, you have the Siberian myth, you have the assertion that India and Australia were somehow necessary to the war in Europe and not places like Canada and Venezuela, that U.S. lack of involvement would lead to a string of greater defeats in 1941 despite Lend-Lease to the Soviets only beginning with the entry of the U.S. into the war after Typhoon had stopped. That's facts, not your bizarre assertions and assumptions.

>This is exactly the same kind of bullshit you imply i do.

Did you miss the next line where I said I can make up stuff too? It was meant as an ironic underscoring of what you do.


>histrf.ru/uploads/media/default/0001/12/df78d3da0fe55d965333035cd9d4ee2770550653.pdf

Will read, give me a bit to metabolize it.

>How would China fare without US help? Would the Kuomintang have performed the same with no allied help whatsoever?

Hard to say, the KMT was enormously ineffective at actually using the resources they had, and the aid that they did get was often intermittent, because the Japanese presence in Burma heavily restricted the flow of supplies. What supplies Chiang did get was often more used to play balancing games between his subordinate warlords than actual battlefield use.

But on the other hand, Japan had a huge amount of trouble actually running the area they took; the war in China in some ways was more like a fucking ridiculously huge counterinsurgency than a conventional war.

I really have no idea, to be honest.

>Siberian myth
Have to give you that.

>India and Australia were somehow necessary to the war in Europe
You don´t see the massive political importance of them ? What would happen if these colonies are lost ?

>Will read, give me a bit to metabolize it.
Ok.

>that U.S. lack of involvement would lead to a string of greater defeats in 1941 despite Lend-Lease to the Soviets only beginning with the entry of the U.S. into the war after Typhoon had stopped

That was not my point. If it came across it was probably due to me beeing dead tired. Discussion is intresting though so i will stay awake some more.

I wasn´t necesserarily meaning in 41. My counterfactual assumption was that 42 and 43 are more successfull years for germany. I think the war would be long and more drawn out. My basic assumption was that the soviet industry wouldn´t be able to handle two fronts properly without lend and lease.

>I really have no idea, to be honest.

I think this is the most important point desu :

>But on the other hand, Japan had a huge amount of trouble actually running the area they took; the war in China in some ways was more like a fucking ridiculously huge counterinsurgency than a conventional war.

The japanese were gloriously incompetent BUT i just think even booged down in china they would have eventually attacked the SU if the army would have been able to warrant enough political support in the glorious clusterfuck japanese politics were at the time.

First of all, it is key to realize that the British Army, even after the win at El Alamein was in absolute fucking turmoil. The major diversion that really marked the fall of the Afrikacorps was the American landing in Oran, Algeria which pulverized the Vichy French and opened up a second front in the region. Without that front, the Axis would have likely been able to launch a counter-offensive that would have put the Suez Canal under Axis control, which would be devastating for the Royal Navy.

Next, the Germans would hit the Caucasus mountains going up through the Middle East, getting a wealth of oil while opening up another front against the USSR. In the meantime, the Japanese attack India and decimate the remaining British soldiers there. With the British threat being eliminated, the Axis can now turn to the Russians.

The USSR wasn't hard to beat in Barbarossa, before they got lend lease. The key is beating the Soviets before they can get the 85mm cannon on the T-34, which puts the mass produced Soviet tanks on par with the German PzIV and a threat (in numbers) to the early Tiger I. By capturing Soviet tank factories and leaving the Soviets with a small envoy of T-34/76's the Germans can start replacing PzIVs with Panthers and the trek through the Urals can begin.

The key to attacking the USSR (which was common sense - guess Adolf was too methed out to realize it) was to wait until the warmer season came. The Germans now have the momentum, and the Japanese are invading Manchuria as Soviet logistics are now being wasted quickly; the Ukraine is gone, so no more food, and the Soviet people begin to die behind the front lines. The operation is slow, but it results in the fracture of the Soviet Army.

By 1944 the Russians would be done. It is split between Germany and Japan. Japan is now attacking Australia, the final great British territory, as the Germans mass their army on the Western Front in preparation for Operation Sea Lion.

Very interesting article, although is habit of citing some of his claims but not others, especially for a scholarly work, does make my teeth itch.

We're talking about roughly a 40% food production reduction then, in a country which was hardly abundant food wise beforehand. Certainly, starvation would set in.

However, would said starvation force the Soviets to the peace table? I would especially recommend this book if you're looking for the effects of hunger during the second world war amazon.com/dp/1594203296?tag=lewrockwell&camp=213381&creative=390973&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=1594203296&adid=0WGBD5BFA99BXFRV174K&&ref-refURL=http://www.lewrockwell.com/?post_type=article&p=467705&preview=true

But Germany was also facing starvation issues in 1944-45, and they didn't surrender because of it, you needed actual occupation and direct control to bring down their government.

Furthermore, simply because the Americans weren't around to give food aid, that doesn't necessarily mean there aren't' other alternatives: Turkey's probably a no-go, but the British had occupied both Iraq and Iran in 1941 (or are we changing that too?), and you could tap them for food supplies, especially if you're willing to go Nazi-mode and starve the local populations. I would need to look up crop yields in Canada as well, as for the possibility of food from the British empire making it into Murmansk; probably unlikely though, given the rationing extant in Britain itself.

>India & Australia
Keep in mind that both of these colonies are extremely important for their geographical and logistical value. Both provided manpower for the Commonwealth, and were a check on the Japanese.