Would the Nazis have lost without US involvement?

Post Reply
Charles
Posts: 809
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 4:39 pm

Would the Nazis have lost without US involvement?

Post by Charles » Sat Aug 20, 2011 4:16 pm

Would England and the Soviets have taken Germany without the US?

User avatar
Notorious
Posts: 11909
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:56 am

Re: Would the Nazis have lost without US involvement?

Post by Notorious » Sat Aug 20, 2011 5:09 pm

Germany had already fugged themselves over by opening a war on 2 fronts and going into Russia during winter. They were probably going to lose anyway, we shortened it by a lot though.
Never Underestimate The Fart Of A Monarch

User avatar
Parrotpaul
Posts: 33550
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:14 pm

Re: Would the Nazis have lost without US involvement?

Post by Parrotpaul » Sat Aug 20, 2011 5:17 pm

The Soviets probably would have picked up more real estate had we not been there.
"I think I may say that of all the men we meet with, nine parts of ten are what they are, good or evil, useful or not, by their education." John Locke

Luca
Posts: 6666
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: Would the Nazis have lost without US involvement?

Post by Luca » Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:43 pm

It's an interesting alternative history question, Notorious. I'm not so sure.

While it is true that the majority of the German army was eventually wrecked on the Eastern front by the Russians, it's also true that a good part of the reason that the Russians were able to hang on was American military equipment and goods shipped to them through the northern sea routes.

It gets complicated because had the United States not gotten involved At all, it's very possible that Britain would have folded and made whatever deal it could with Hitler. It's not widely known that Britain seriously considered throwing in the towel immediately after Dunkirk. They had virtually no equipment for their army and they didn't have the industrial-strength to reequip their army while continuing to build up the Royal Air Force and maintain the Royal Navy. The Royal Air Force had the bare minimum that they felt they needed to survive the Battle of Britain (they had squandered the rest of it in France) and although the Royal Navy was dominant, there was no way Britain could seriously threaten Germany with the Royal Navy alone.

What kept Britain going was the hope that eventually America would join them, help rearm them and then turn the tide on the Western Front. It was to a very large degree this hope that kept Britain in the war and if the United States had made clear that there was no way they were going to get involved, I'm not sure if that Britain would've seen any point in continuing.

And if England folded, that would mean that Germany could throw its entire army against Russia without having to militarily occupy Norway and France and the Low Countries. There is then no way that America could have supplied Russia without using Britain as a staging area and the Royal Navy for convoy protection. And without any American arms against the entire German onslaught, I'm not so sure that Russia could have withstood the Germans either.

However, a flow of equipment and the mere threat of American involvement (without actually getting involved) might have kept Britain in the war and thereby reduced the strength of Barbarossa (the German invasion of Russia) by forcing the Germans to withhold a significant part of their forces to guard their Western front (as subsequently happened). But if the US really had not gotten involved militarily I don't see how Britain could have launched an invasion of France on its own. They could still have defeated the Afrika Corps and controlled North Africa but I don't think they could've forced their way back onto the Continent and ease the strain on Russia.

If I had to guess, without American involvement I think there would've ultimately been some sort of treaty between Britain and Germany but Russia would've probably been screwed. Especially when you consider that without having to worry about American involvement, the Japanese may well have invaded eastern Russia and caused the whole country to collapse. Luca

User avatar
tLIB
Posts: 3338
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:35 pm

Re: Would the Nazis have lost without US involvement?

Post by tLIB » Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:21 pm

I think the Germans were working on a nuke. If they were and the war lasted longer???? I don't know. Another question is - if we never got involved in WWI, would there have been a WWII? Would the Germans still be slugging it out in France etc? Even more importantly: How long can a country occupy another country? Nothing lasts forever.

Charles
Posts: 809
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: Would the Nazis have lost without US involvement?

Post by Charles » Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:40 am

tLIB wrote:Even more importantly: How long can a country occupy another country? Nothing lasts forever.
Some people think parts of the Southwest US is currently "occupied" by the US.

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: Would the Nazis have lost without US involvement?

Post by GOODave » Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:36 am

Notorious wrote:Germany had already fugged themselves over by opening a war on 2 fronts...
Kind of like America did, only their two armies were a lot closer together than ours were.

Luca
Posts: 6666
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: Would the Nazis have lost without US involvement?

Post by Luca » Mon Aug 22, 2011 12:52 pm

tLIB wrote:I think the Germans were working on a nuke. If they were and the war lasted longer???? I don't know. Another question is - if we never got involved in WWI, would there have been a WWII? Would the Germans still be slugging it out in France etc? Even more importantly: How long can a country occupy another country? Nothing lasts forever.
The German nuclear program was a dead-end and they gave up on it, or at least made it such a low priority that it wouldn't be a factor. It was run by Werrner Heisenberg, who was a legendary theoretical physicist but apparently (deliberately, some say) guided the program down the wrong theoretical approaches and it failed.

Because the Germans were counting on a quick war they gave up on the program just as they abandoned other concepts prematurely, such as jet fighters and a few others they thought would take too long to develop. I don't think the Germans getting a nuclear weapon was ever in the cards during World War II. Luca

User avatar
tLIB
Posts: 3338
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:35 pm

Re: Would the Nazis have lost without US involvement?

Post by tLIB » Mon Aug 22, 2011 2:18 pm

The U.S. abandoned the flying wing prematurely, but later brought it back. If the U.S. had not been involved in WWII, we probably would not have seen an urgency to develop nuclear weapons. The Germans may or may not have brought a nuclear program back if the war lasted another 10 or 20 years - assuming the U.S. never got involved in WWII.

Post Reply