What's the Outcome In Europe in WWII if the US Doesn't Join?

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Assume we devote our troops to the Pacific theater. We send ample supplies to the Britain and the USSR, but no direct fighting. How do you think the war in Europe plays out?

I think the Allies still win because Stalin was the critical factor. But it's possible that Stalin just takes what he wants and when Hitler is eventually replaced by someone more reasonable, Stalin agrees to let Germany keep much of what she conquered.

It's also possible that if Hitler is replaced, Churchill does a deal with Germany to defeat Stalin.

But those are just a couple of possibilities. What do you think?

Does Britain fall? If so, does the US - now King of the Far East - take over in Australia, New Zealand and India?

 

[SSG T]

Without going too deep into details, I think that the following happens in some order.

Britain and Germany sign some sort of treaty allowing German to keep its gains in the west and Britain to stay independent.

The US defeats Japan quicker.

The US, Germany and Britain team up against the USSR, forcing them to fight two fronts, and end up defeating them in a more prolonged war, maybe around 1948-49.

However, the Cold War never happens with the USSR and is instead replaced by a lower level, shorter one with Germany. It ends by the 1960's.

Going into all of the economic and societal implications of it would be far more difficult. For example, without Vietnam happening, does the Peace Movement/hippie generation still happen?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Without going too deep into details, I think that the following happens in some order.

Britain and Germany sign some sort of treaty allowing German to keep its gains in the west and Britain to stay independent.

The US defeats Japan quicker.

The US, Germany and Britain team up against the USSR, forcing them to fight two fronts, and end up defeating them in a more prolonged war, maybe around 1948-49.

However, the Cold War never happens with the USSR and is instead replaced by a lower level, shorter one with Germany. It ends by the 1960's.

Going into all of the economic and societal implications of it would be far more difficult. For example, without Vietnam happening, does the Peace Movement/hippie generation still happen?

Good stuff.

Clearly the Vietnam war was a big driver of the changes we saw in the 60s, so there would certainly be some differences. But even before we had the war to protest we had the civil rights struggle and the free speech movement. We already had the Peace Corps. Plus we had the British invasion. And we would still have had the pill.

So my guess is that we see a lot of the same changes. Perhaps more slowly and with less pot smoking.

Without the Vietnam war, LBJ is a great president, rivaling FDR, and serves 2 terms - all based on his domestic programs (better funded without the war) and civil rights record.

 

[strummingram]

Let's see... wealthy men continue to influence government and popular opinion (or become powerful themselves in political offices) and get their peasants to kill each other for their personal gain.

Fill in the scenery however you wish. It's happening now so use some present-day examples if you get stumped.

 

[h-hawk]

I don't think the US ever fights with the Nazis. They made even the Commies look good by comparison IMHO the first scenario where Russia gains an advantage and Hitler is forced to deal with them is more likely. (Could Churchill and GB alone have kept Stalin fighting?) But without the threat of the American troops and airpower which helped Britain tie down hundreds of thousands of German troops on the Western and Mediterranean Fronts, Germany may have maintained enough strength to create at least a draw with the Soviet Union. Thus splitting Europe down the middle, at least for awhile before the fighting started again.

 

[strummingram]

Ohhh, I did forget one crucial factor. Palestine is still just Palestine. Zionism has to wait for World War III.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Ohhh, I did forget one crucial factor. Palestine is still just Palestine. Zionism has to wait for World War III.

That's an interesting point. Can you flesh out how you see the differences?

 

[strummingram]

That's an interesting point. Can you flesh out how you see the differences?

Not really. They tried in the First World War (see Balfour Declaration), but didn't get it. I've heard that it was instrumental with getting the USA in that war. At any rate, they got it after the Second World War. And, we see how well that's been going ever since. I guess, in speculation, maybe there wouldn't be the upheaval and hatred between the middle eastern countries and most of the west, especially the USA and Britain. Hey, for all I know, we could be allies with those countries were it not for the forced state of Israel.

 

[preshlock]

Interesting scenario and completely plausible.

We did not fight the Germans in a ground battle until late November 1942. A time when the Battle of Stalingrad was reaching a crucial phase and the Germans had already lost 2,100,000 men on the Eastern Front. By the beginning of January 1943 the Germans were losing 145,000 troops per month on the Eastern Front.

Lend Lease supplies to the Soviets did not appear in appreciable quantity until the spring of 1943. But considering the Soviets had whethered the main German onslaught there is no reason to suppose we would have stopped supplying them. In Europe the Soviets bore the near complete brunt of German strength, while the Wehrmacht was strongest between Barbarossa and Stalingrad, without meaningful Western assistance.

Still my thinking is that without the threat of a Second Front the Eastern Front ends in a stalemate at some point between the Vistula and Dnieper River. Most likely being further east than west. On average the Germans lost 4,1600 troop a day on the Eastern Front and the Soviets 20,000, those were simply unsustainable casualties.

Because of British naval domination in the Mediterranean the Germans and Italians would have eventually been forced to surrender in North Africa. It is possible that British and Commonwealth troops could have taken Sicily but an advance into the Italian mainland would been highly unlikely.

 

[strummingram]

Until recently, after watching some extensive WWII documentaries, I had no idea Germany had so many able-bodied fighting males to sustain such losses. Germany is like the size of New Mexico.

 

[preshlock]

Until recently, after watching some extensive WWII documentaries, I had no idea Germany had so many able-bodied fighting males to sustain such losses. Germany is like the size of New Mexico.

When the German army marched into Poland on September 1, 1939 the Greater Reich had 83,000,000 people. Conquests from Operation White to Barbarossa amounted to losses of 215,000. When Barbarossa concluded on September 26, 1941 with victory at the Battle of Kiev German casualties against the Soviets had reached 513,000 casualties. By December 1, 1941 German losses on the Eastern Front reached 800,000, fully one-quarter of the invading force. By April 1, 1942 when the Soviet winter counter offensives petter-out the Germans had taken a full 1,350,000, casualties or one third of the invading force. Simply put the German army was never the same again.

As you noted a severe manpower crisis began to emerge in early 1942. Even by lowering conscription standards which enabled the Wehrmacht to draft just 620,000 troops per-year.

By September 1, 1942, just two weeks before 6. Armee entered Stalingrad, German losses in the East amounted to 1,700,000. As the war went on the Germans simply ran out of abled body men to put into uniform.

German losses:

Blitzkrieg - 9/1/39 to 5/31/41- 215,000
Eastern Front - 6/22/41 to 5/9/45- 6,225,000
North Africa - 3/31/41 to 5/13/43- 160,000

These were the campaigns which were absent of or had little support from the United States. Keep in mind that 8/10 German casualties were sustained against the Soviet Union.

 

[strummingram]

And, to me, those figures help to dissuade anyone, and end any discussion that sounds like "If we hadn't gone over there we might be speaking German today." They never had the manpower to try to take the USA by military force. They probably lacked the resources to boot.

 

[preshlock]

And, to me, those figures help to dissuade anyone, and end any discussion that sounds like "If we hadn't gone over there we might be speaking German today." They never had the manpower to try to take the USA by military force. They probably lacked the resources to boot.

Right never understood that line of thinking.

Of all the decisions made by Hitler invading the Soviet Union was by far the most consequential. Still, declaring war on us was the most pointless. The German navy had an incredibly small surface fleet dedicated to commerce raiding. On December 11, 1941 75% of Wehrmacht manpower was deployed along the Eastern Front and the German army was taking massive losses against the Soviets.

Aside from the U-Boats inflicting a large number of sinkings along the Eastern Seaboard and Gulf of Mexico there was nothing they could do against us .