In an alternate history where F.D.R. dies in 1937 and John Garner is defeated in the 1940 election by an extremely isolationist candidate, how would WWII turn out with America providing little to no aid to the Allied Powers?
Basically, how does WWII (in Europe) turn out if America has no hand in it?
The Soviets liberate Paris.
The exact same, because deep down you know Stalin could have done it on his own if he really needed to.
Soviet victory and total control of the European continent by the end of 1946 at the very latest
Russia basically defeated 70% of the German military themselves in the real war, I doubt that extra 30% would make much a difference.
The western front sped up the end of the war, but it by no means meant the Russians didn't still do most of the fighting.
No
No
>Basically, how does WWII (in Europe) turn out if America has no hand in it?
It takes a little bit longer to reach a similar conclusion.
The Lend-Lease program played an extremely important role in upholding the Allies' war efforts prior to the USA's formal entrance into the war, but the Soviet Union still would have defeated the Third Reich without the material support from America, and Britain still would have staved off the Blitz on their own terms.
The German invasion of Russia was fundamentally flawed from a logistical standpoint. The Nazis simply couldn't defeat the USSR before they were buried by the Soviets' vastly superior industrial output.
t.anglo
>Soviets' vastly superior industrial output
I don't disagree with the overall explanation, but the Soviets had fuck-all industry. Case in point; the Lend-Lease program shipped them something like 2000 locomotives; they only made ~100. Its a similar story with trucks, food, clothing, basically everything a military needs that isn't a weapon.
to sum up, Germans still lose. Maybe not unconditionally, might be able to surrender with more favorable terms.
The war wouldn't have been very decisive, soviet logistics and factory output was largely due to allied supply in the former and allied technology and factory tools almost entirely in the latter. People who say 30% of the axis didn't recall how close things got in the east and how close nations like Turkey were to joining the axis aswell. It's impossible to know but without the logistical, air and factory assets and 30% more germans that war would go on for far longer.
I get your point, but saying their industrial output was shitty is kind of an over-simplification. I mean, they put out 15,000 fucking T-34s in 1943. The Soviet Union prioritized certain things, and you can question the wisdom of how they allocated their available resources - but it also becomes a bit of a chicken or the egg type question. If they were getting thousands of locomotives from abroad, why bother making any yourself in lieu of more tanks?
But you're not wrong. I don't want to downplay the significance of the Lend-Lease, as I originally said. It was a pretty big fucking deal. I just don't think it was essential to a Soviet victory.
Without Lend-Lease, many of those T34 factories have to make trucks or whatever instead. They already had pretty drastic quality-control problems, check out the welds on some T34's for a good example. And they were already cutting corners on many things; their own trucks only had one headlight and no doors, because it would take an extra 2 minutes to install them. There are stories of T34's leaving the factory with no paint. Now imagine they're even more desperate.
Consider for a moment the K/D ratio of armored vehicles between the Soviets and the Axis. Run the same ratio out till one side has nothing left, and you'll see the Soviets win with about ~30,000 armored vehicles left. That's pretty much exactly how many armored vehicles the Soviets got from Lend-Lease. Also gotta remember that in a no Lend-Lease war, the Soviets can't make as many of their own tanks because they have to also make trucks and trains and uniforms and such. I'm not gonna say the outcome of the war would change for sure, or even likely, but there's a small it could have. It certainly would've dragged on much longer.
I think a more interesting study is what happens to England. Without US shipbuilding cranking out destroyers and Liberty Ships, the U-boats knock the England out of the war by like, 42 or something. They just simply starve. The rest of the Commonwealth will probably fight on, but they'll be about as effective as Free France; i.e. not at all. The real question is, if Hitler is buttfuckingly retarded enough to try Operation Sea Lion. If he is, then the war probably ends much the same as it really did; Germany completely fucked.
The same, because the Japanese would still attack the United states over the trade block from the threat to American interests in the Philippines. Germany would still declare war on the United states.
>the axis didn't recall how close things got in the east
Nothing was close in the east.
Heeresgruppe Mitte almost got anihilated in winter 41 after that germany gained some land but made no strategical progress in the east other than sew./crimea.
It was never close moron.
>Russia basically defeated 70%
More like 80%-85%
Soviets would take Europe, perhaps Brits would be able to retain France or Italy for the west camp. Some chance that during the prolonged time the war takes (let's say 48-49) Germany has a coup and makes peace on very unfavorable terms including regime change instead of being completely overrun.
Also, the probability that the US wouldn't get involved regardless of candidate (Wilson was anti war as well) is really not that high especially that Japan could have attacked anyway.
Bomber Harris nukes Berlin.
Thank you Based Harris
This, it was basically impossible for US to stay out of the war, unless they would willingly give up their interests
USSR collapses and the Third Reich rules continental Europe like the USA rules continental North America.
However, the Germans might let a much smaller version of Russia continue to exist as long as it's not communist, ala Mexico to the US. Basically, a place for that ethnicity to live separate of a government for German people.
>Having to invade Britain
Let's see how well Winston can keep the people in line six months into the famine created by the U-boat blockade
The even more important point than the logistical equipment (which was really fucking important because it enabled large scale soviet offensives) is the food and industrial equipment recieved.
In 41 the Reich conquered most of the Ukraine which was the breadbasket of the SU (about 40% of food production). The allied food shipments contained the starvation enough to guarantee full soviet war participation. Without it in 1943/1944 the soviets should get real problems with unrest and labour and Manpower shortages.
Without the ressources, machine parts etc. soviet industry never even closely reaches its historical output. And that much smaller output has to provide much more than historically (trucks, trains etc.).
Stuff like 50% of high octane fuel delivered only underlines my main point:
The soviets would have been able to hold their ground after 41 but they wouldn't have been able to start their major counteroffensives. With the worsening food situation the situation only worsenes for the soviets. A ceasefire with huge german gains is the most likely outcome.
And we haven't even considered most other implications of isolationist US:
-ceasefire with GB becomes really likely, freeing up considerable additional forces for the eastern front
-increased support for the eastern front by Axis members and aligned nations
-free flow of ressources for the Reich after a possible ceasefire with GB
-possible Japanese advances in the far east
To Name only a few.
Japanese would still do pearl harbor because of lack of resources unless the US decides not cut off iron ore to Japan.
Soviets still push back. Britain sends troops to the eastern front to help OR does a small invasion of Norway or Italy. They couldn't do D-Day without American materials and manpower.
Stalin holds all the cards at the peace treaty. Most of Europe goes Red, except maybe France.
No Embargo is likely if the POTUS is super isolationist. Japan suggested a conference to divide the spheres of influence in the pacific. An agreement probably would have been reached. This in turn would have caused an even earlier ceasefire between GB and the Reich. I think the British Empire would have focused its Naval and Army assets to defend its far more profitable asian colonies.
Even if that doesn't happen Britain recieves no help from the Raj or Australia and no or very little material and ressources.
Unlikely. Stalin surely can't overrun the Reich (most likely not even reconquer most of his lost territories) and GB won't be able to just launch invasions into mainland europe. I seriously doubt that they would be able to completely evict the germans from Africa without US help and even if they don't its even more unlikely they have the troops or logistics to just invade norway. The germans had a sizeable garrison there.
Italy is handsdown impossible. Sicily maybe but mainland Italy offers pristine defensive positions and a german ally with a huge army.
And both Naval regions needed to stage the Invasion were contested. Sure GB had superiority but naval bombing, u-boats and the enemy fleets were able to seriously disrupt attempts to supply Invasion forces.
>Unlikely. Stalin surely can't overrun the Reich (most likely not even reconquer most of his lost territories)
Why?
>and GB won't be able to just launch invasions into mainland europe. I seriously doubt that they would be able to completely evict the germans from Africa without US help
The situation was getting worse for germany and Italy everyday as supplying the Afrika corps was a logistical nightmare. Britain could've basically waited it out if they didn't fight with the us. Ammunition, oil and food were all in short supply for Germans and Italinas in Africa, while American lend lease made England have ample supplies.
>more unlikely they have the troops or logistics to just invade norway. The germans had a sizeable garrison there.
The garrison however doesn't outnumber the combined forces of Britain and Canada.
>Italy is handsdown impossible. Sicily maybe but mainland Italy offers pristine defensive positions and a german ally with a huge army.
I agree in a traditional ww2 scenario, but in this universe Germany is fighting to stop the Russians reaching Berlin. Helping the Italians wouldn't be a priority.
>Why?
Because even in 1943 the Wehrmacht was able to conduct offensives. In this universe this is after 2 1/2 years of a starving SU and with full german air superiority. The soviets should have a serious problem to arm their troops at this point because believe it or not lend and lease was crucial in reaching the industrial capacity needed to start pushing back.
A few simple examples why:
-logistics: Soviet production would have to focus on providing adequate logistics. A huge number of trucks and trains would have to be produced domestically. The Red Army suddenly would be in a similiar situation as the Wehrmacht. Crucial industry would have to be used for trucks and trains while Stil not being able to field enough to provide adequate logistics. The Wehrmacht attempted to solve this with horses, which the SU is unlikely to achieve because of the starvation that would ensue without lend and lease food shipments and the superior organization and ability to innovate the Wehrmacht possesed.
-machine parts and other building Blocks of industry:
Real life isn't hearts of iron. Entire production lines can be dependent on a Single machine part. This stuff tends to require high precicision manufacturing- the soviets were in short supply of that. So even more of the soviet industry would be focused on producing other stuff instead of weapons and realistically some stuff simply wouldn't be available lowering the available production.
-The Wehrmacht left scorched Lands. Every region the Red Army would reconquer (and i seriously don't see how they would) would require a huge infrastructural Investment to enable further offensives.
Without Lend and lease the soviets would run into a lot of the same problems the Wehrmacht did. And on its own it wouldn't be able to achieve working solutions because the losses of 41 were disastrous. The soviet losses in their huge offensives for example were huge without lend and lease they wouldn't be able to replace them.
>Britain could have waited in out.
You talk about l and l. You realize in this scenario britain recieves no aid whatsoever? So the war is much more costly for GB ? Also i never said the Germans would win in Africa but GB wouldn't be able to throw them out. The HG Afrika could just assume defensive positions while binding considerable british forces.
>The garrison isn't as big as the combined forces of GB and Canada.
No but GB and Canada wouldn't have been able to supply all of their troops because they lacked the necessary ships. They also had to employ and supply troops in other theaters.
>In this scenario the germans would neglect Italy.
Why ?without lend and lease the soviets would be even less dangerous and without the US troops the germans would have sufficient forces to just throw GB back out. Quickly stabilizing Italy and possibly capturing the Invasion force should be even more of a priority.
Retarded thread and question, this guy told you why.
>except france
>country with the largest communist party in western europe in the interwar years
wew
With no hope of getting American support UK sues for peace. Germany can redirect its war effort towards the USSR. With no US support, the industrial output of the USSR is a fraction of what it could have been. This outcome would be pretty close.
The role of the French communist party in the resistance was enormously overblown by propaganda.
A ceasefire with german gains is the realistic outcome.