If the Japanese hadn't attacked pearl harbor and Germany hadn't subsequently declared war on the US...

if the Japanese hadn't attacked pearl harbor and Germany hadn't subsequently declared war on the US, would they have gotten involved beyond just jewing the Brits out of their empire? What would have been the implications?

Britian will have a much harder time in the Med without the US. If the Soviets aren't being supplied by the US while the US is conducting joint invasions of southern and western Europe with Britain and various other allied nations then the Soviets will likely not be capable of pushing the Germany military out of European Russia.

IMO the Brits could have taken Germany on 1v1, purely because they had the superior strategic advantage, of the channel and the home fleet, not to mention the better airforce, they are for all intents and purposes untouchable to the Germans
Without US support the USSR would not be able to supply major offensives in the same timetable, but they would still be capable of pushing back Germany, just not as quickly
All things considered, the war lasts 2-5 years longer but Germany still loses

Brits and soviets will still win, they have too much manpower and resources advantage over Germany. Will take a few years longer, and maybe 10 million dead pajeets

US was already de facto allied with Britain in 1939, and the only reason Japan was corned into chimping out was because the US pressured Britain and the Netherlands to join in the embargo/sanction.
The idea that US would simply sit by while Japan runs wild in its sphere of influence is laughable.

Neither the bongs or commies were capable of prosecuting the conflict to anything beyond stalemate, absent the US.

No anime.

Soviets could have beaten Germany, but with no lend lease it would take them longer and cost them more lives

La creatura...

The Sovs lost 14.5M dead as it was. That's about 10% of their male population, 20% overall, and they still hadn't driven the Nazis completely off their clay 4 years into warring with them. Absent the US, it would have been far worse for them.

Americans vastly over estimate the effect of lend lease on the Soviet War effort. It helped a lot but by no means was essential and the Soviets would have eventually won without it.

>t. assblasted bong

Define beat, because the Soviets aren't conducting the moble counter-offensives they did historically without lend-lease. They would also probably be facing a larger number of German soldiers too. Maybe they get a white peace in 10 years, but there's no occuptation of Germany without American involvement in the war.

Yes, Lend Lease was essential to the Sovs. The numbers bear that out, as do the Sovs own statements.

They won all the major victories before any significant amount of materiel arrived and only lost so many men because the Germans attacked without warning and 3 million men

lol no. The soviet army will have far fewer and far more static military forces without lend-lease aid.

The Sovs "only lost so many men" because they were militarily incompetent savages, and only survived because of the blood they wasted and the materiel the US provided.

And yet the Germans lost to these incompetent savages, even after Stalin killed 80% of their officers, and they had the upper hand in men and factor of surprise

Imagine being that assblasted about the USSR blasting "uber"menschen ass.

All countries that the Axis attacked were unmobilized. The reason why the Soviets were at a disadvantage against the Germans was exactly the same America was at a disadvantage against the Japanese, except, of course, maritime defeats cosumed very little lives.

>They would also probably be facing a larger number of German soldiers too
The Germans needed a lot more than more men to win in the East.

When was America ever at a disadvantage with Japan?
They outstripped them in every field imaginable

That's true, they also needed an enemy that was far less capable due to lack of mobility. Guess what happens to the soviet army without lend lease aid?

1st phase of war was Japanese victories all over, until Midway, was it?

>the Germans lost to these incompetent savages
No, the Germans lost to the US, and US-supplied incompetent savages.

Remind me who got to Berlin first?

>being this deluded
how embarrassing

The Japanese were raided consistently by US fleets starting 2 months after Pearl Harbor, all tactical victories, with the Doolittle raid providing some strategic impetus. 5 months after Pearl, a Japanese combined offensive at Port Moresby was turned back and Midway took place at month 6. If there was a 1st phase of Japanese victory, it didn't last long.

The US-supplied incompetent savages ignored that Nazi troops still occupied their clay, and pursued other activities, is what I think you meant to say, user.

Yes those same incompetent savages who were ''inferior''but still somehow won while rebounding from one of the most devastating officer purges and the biggest land invasion in history.
>Nazi troops still occupied their clay
Fuck are you smoking?

>t. proud historylet

Doolittle Raid had zero strategic value.

If the US completely stayed out of the war (no lend-lease, no alliances, no embargoing, etc) it would've been an easy Axis victory on all fronts.

If the US was an actual neutral country, history since WW1 would have developed completely differently, with Britain and France being more heavily armed and being far more interventionist toward Germany. WW2 happened the way it did in large part due to the US orchestrating British policy behind the scenes.

Doolittle Raid had great strategic value, in causing the Japanese to accelerate their plans to expand their defensive perimeter, rather than take a measured approach. That acceleration caused them to fragment Kido Butai, splitting their forces and setting them up for the defeat at Coral Sea and the disaster at Midway. The were smashed strategically because the Doolittle Raid forced them into a poor strategic decision.

>in causing the Japanese to accelerate their plans to expand their defensive perimeter
There's no proof of this.

>the Doolittle Raid forced them into a poor strategic decision.
A post-war rationalization of a retarded raid that wasted people's lives for nothing.

>rather than take a measured approach.
What the fuck would a "measured approach" have accomplished for them? So instead of fighting the 3 Yorktowns they'd get to go up against 20 Essexes? Lmao @ this dumb fuck double digit IQ inbred bitch tryna make a post on Veeky Forums.

Everyone knows the Valentine won the eastern front.

Attached: valentine-mod-8.jpg (928x643, 139K)

There is proof of this. Yamamoto used that Doolittle raid to justify his plans to attack and expand, particularly as the Americans took pains to fly over the emperor's palace. Fragmenting Kido Butai was a massive blunder, and allowed the Americans to defeat it in detail. The Japanese had always planned on a great battle with the Americans, but they jettisoned even their own vision. Very foolish.

>There is proof of this.
Go ahead and post the proof then.

They would be defeated in any event, but destroying the USN had been their plan for many years, and they took their eye off that ball, but I doubt you ever take your eye off the balls, faggot.

kek, the poor bongs, they just can't into mechanized warfare.

Nyaah, I don't think I'll bother educating you, faggot.

lmao don't you dare ever post again, noproof faggot.

keep your eye on the balls, faggot

>Germany could have launched an offensive that was so strong it would take Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, the Caucases, and drive the entirety of the (larger) Red Army back to the Urals AFTER the Battle of Stalingrad

Attached: 1520733917156.png (645x729, 62K)

Who said this? Germany doesn't need to do this to win or get a white peace.

Well, they didn't do any of that and they didn't get a white peace so

Than what do they need to do?

Stalin was waiting for the right time to attack Germany. Hitler just beat him to the punch

Attached: 16BC4322-2494-4EE0-AF17-761B8D29B0A7.jpg (352x482, 72K)

Yeah, because they were fighting the US and the UK at the same time as the USSR.

Read the OP's post. The hypothetical in question is what would happen without US involvement in the war directly or indirectly. All Germany really needs to do in such a situation is to keep fighting.

>US doesn't send lend lease to the Soviets
>Soviets win in Moscow, strategically crippling the Wehrmacht
>Soviets win in Stalingrad, completely obliderating any chance the Wehrmacht has to launch legitimate offensives
>Because American lend lease isnt in effect, the Soviets launch their offensives years later, with more casualties, and less encirclements
>Soviets reach Berlin a couple years after 1945
???

The US and UK didn't get significantly involved in Europe until around Stalingrad.

The US didn't enter the European theater until 1944, and the British spent most of the war camping on their island. Nearly all the actual fighting was done by the Soviets.

>The US didn't enter the European theater until 1944

Attached: 1495713443938.gif (500x493, 631K)

>Soviets win in Moscow, strategically crippling the Wehrmacht
Wrong, they went on the offensive again in 1942.

>Soviets win in Stalingrad, completely obliderating any chance the Wehrmacht has to launch legitimate offensives
Also wrong, the Germans failed with Kursk in 1943 because the Soviets were receiving massive amounts of American aid and the Germans were having to divert forces to the south to defend Italy and west into France for the invasion that just about everyone knew was coming.


>Because American lend lease isnt in effect, the Soviets launch their offensives years later, with more casualties, and less encirclements and are ultimately unsuccessfuly as they can't ever manage to inflict a permanent and decisive defeat on the Germans.
>Soviets peace out of the war by 1950 or so.
Fixed.

This whole post is wrong, Britain was fighting in North Africa basically from the time France was overrun. The US joined the war in the European theater when it invaded Sicily and Italy alongside the British. By 1943 some 40 percent of the German military was focused on dealing with actual or planned/hypothetical American/British invasions.

First off nice Reddit spacing, it makes your posts look atrocious
>Wrong, they went on the offensive again in 1942.
And how much of a chance did that offensive have to succeed?
>Also wrong, the Germans failed with Kursk in 1943
The tactical situation at Kursk didn't even matter. Let's say that Germans win. Now what? They encircle and destroy a couple dozen divisions. Those divisions will probably be replaced in a matter of weeks.
>because the Soviets were receiving massive amounts of American aid
Lend lease made up less than 10% of the Russian military industrial output.
>and the Germans were having to divert forces to the south to defend Italy and west into France for the invasion that just about everyone knew was coming.
This "diversion" was small and you're being misleading. In 1943 the most amount of divisions stationed in Italy was 23. Compare that to the 189 divisions on the Eastern Front. And what's to say the divisions sent to Italy weren't just garrison or underequipped infantry divisions? Are you implying that the Germans were sending the best soldiers they had available away from Kursk?
>are ultimately unsuccessfuly as they can't ever manage to inflict a permanent and decisive defeat on the Germans.
The area the Russians have to fight is perfectly realistic for a half a decade of offensives to cover. After Kursk the Russians vastly outnumbered and outgunned the Germans. Without lend lease, the only difference is that the war takes a while longer and thr Soviets suffer more casualties. This is accepted historical fact, can you provide more evidence for your revisionist claims?
>By 1943 some 40 percent of the German military was focused on dealing with actual or planned/hypothetical American/British invasions.
The peak number of divisions stationed in Italy and the Western Front in 1943 was 76. At that same period, there were 177 divisions on the Eastern Front.

>>And how much of a chance did that offensive have to succeed?
Irrelevant to the fact that germany was not strategically crippled in 1941.
>>The tactical situation at Kursk didn't even matter. Let's say that Germans win. Now what? They encircle and destroy a couple dozen divisions. Those divisions will probably be replaced in a matter of weeks.
Well, assuming no outside aid is given to the Soviets there will be fewer of those divisions available and they will be not nearly as mobile. So the Germans will be more then capable of destroying the next batch the soviets send and the next after that until the Soviets peace out of the war.
>>Lend lease made up less than 10% of the Russian military industrial output.
This figure is either false, or highly misleading. Even a lot of the Soviet Leadership would privately admit later on that Lend Lease was vital to their efforts.
>>This "diversion" was small and you're being misleading. In 1943 the most amount of divisions stationed in Italy was 23. Compare that to the 189 divisions on the Eastern Front. And what's to say the divisions sent to Italy weren't just garrison or underequipped infantry divisions? Are you implying that the Germans were sending the best soldiers they had available away from Kursk?
They sent soldiers to Italy and France to defend them from actual and eventual invasion. The idea that they were underequipped or that an additional 23 divisions would not have been highly effective against a much less mobile Soviet army is your idea.

The area the Russians have to fight is perfectly realistic for a half a decade of offensives to cover. After Kursk the Russians vastly outnumbered and outgunned the Germans. Without lend lease, the only difference is that the war takes a while longer and thr Soviets suffer more casualties. This is accepted historical fact, can you provide more evidence for your revisionist claims?
It is not accepted historical fact that the soviets would have won without the US.

>>The peak number of divisions stationed in Italy and the Western Front in 1943 was 76. At that same period, there were 177 divisions on the Eastern Front.
You're forgetting the divisions sent to guard Norway from American/British invasion.
>>Without lend lease and American/British invasions the Soviets will not have the mobile forces they used to regain lost ground in the east and will be facing more Germans, which means that they will eventually either lose and have cede some territory, or peace out of the war with a return to the status quo before Barbarossa.

The US was in a shooting war with the Kriegsmarine by mid-1941, long before Pearl Harbor. They were bombing into Europe by 1942.

>All Germany really needs to do in such a situation is to keep fighting.
Yeah all Germany needed to win WW2 was to hunker down for a good ole attrition war.

Attached: 1483531154609.png (600x456, 142K)

You can't argue with Wehraboos. They're completely disconnected from reality.