Just a point of clarification, you would need an earlier POD than Hitler not declaring war on the U.S. because U.S. aid to the Soviets began June 22, 1941, on a “cash and carry” basis (the Soviets paid in gold and other minerals for U.S. supplies), then after September 30, 1941, lend lease (supplies not paid for until later) until September 20, 1945. So well before Pearl Harbor and then the German declaration of war on the U.S., the Soviets were receiving aid.
Assuming no random of declaration of war comes from America, then there also isn't the American armies fighting Rommel in Africa, invading Italy or France. Which allows Germany to focus its entire mobilized economy on the Russians. In our timeline, with the 3 million Allies in Italy and France, the Russians were running out of men in 1945. So at best, in an alternate timeline with these millions of German soldiers available to fight the Russians, it would be a stalemate for Russia somewhere in Eastern Poland.
I do think this is disregarding the threat posted by the British and Commonwealth forces, which were already pushing German and Italian forces back in North Africa (with American material aid) by the time America joined the war. These forces were also conducting limited raids on the continent and contributed 3/5 beaches in the eventual Invasion of Normandy. While some troops could have been transferred east, I don’t think entire armies of German troops would have been freed up.
Hitler diverted hundreds of tanks and quite a few divisions to North Africa after Operation Torch. Without Torch.... who knows. Perhaps the British eventually win by late 1944 or something. But the British threat was pretty minimal. Even if they eventually kick out the Germans from Africa and are supplied with the equipment necessary for amphibious operations in Italy.
When reading about allied operations, the situation is far from what modern 'historians' on Reddit write.
>The US Admiral commanding Avalanche declared: ‘The margin of success in the Salerno landing was carried by the naval gun’
And this is even with US troops on the beaches of Salerno and no doubt in a big chunk of the naval support roles in the operation. See Gallipoli or Dieppe for entirely British run amphibious operations.
>The US Admiral commanding Avalanche declared: ‘The margin of success in the Salerno landing was carried by the naval gun’
Yeah this was true at Sicily, Salerno and Anzio. But so what? Robert Citino spends a page of his wehrmacht trilogy debunking the notion that the allies somehow fucked up by leveraging naval gunfire. The allies were more aggressive with their landings because they had naval superiority, and naval gunfire was an integral part of their operational planning. You can be sure the British would have used as much of it as possible to avoid casualties they could ill-afford. So yes, the British would have been much more conservative if US troops weren't participating in North Africa, but Montgomery had already beaten Rommel by the time Torch happened, using US lend-lease tanks, Rommel had to fall back onto his supply lines whether or not the americans were landing.
The Citino quote (p. 188, The Wehrmacht Retreats: Fighting a Lost War, 1943) :
>On the operational and tactical levels, however, Gela offers an intriguing glimpse of two contrasting ways of war. The Germans had stayed faithful to their traditional recipe: aggressive assault, konzentrisch attack, a Kesselschlacht, even if only in miniature.
>As always, they dominated the proceedings early on. Eight hours later, however, they wound up milling around in confusion, unable to hide on an open beach, getting pulverized by multiple sources of superior U.S. firepower. It is unclear what they were trying to surround at Gela, if indeed they were not merely acting according to military doctrine that was in some sense centuries old and perhaps by now merely assumed rather than consciously designed.
>As for the American conduct of the Gela fight, it has been all too common in the literature to view the use of naval gunfire in negative terms, as if it were a blot on the honor of the land force. Alternatively, it appears suddenly, as a kind of deus ex machina, swooping out of nowhere to rescue the ground troops and save the day. It was neither.
>The use of naval gunfire in the tactical role had been the subject of intensive discussion and negotiation between the army and navy long before Husky brought them all to Sicily. It was not a desperate expedient. Certainly one can identify problems with it. The Boise had to hold its fire repeatedly in the course of the day because the troops on both sides were too closely intermingled and no one in either U.S. service wanted a big-gun fratricide. Naval gunfire is a blunt instrument, not the most delicate or flexible tactical weapon for use in ground combat. It was highly effective at these ranges, however, and from the beginning, it was part of the operational plan.
>Those helpless German tanks brewing up one by one had no answer to naval gunfire, as in some sense a resource- and manpower-poor Wehrmacht had no answer to a U.S. Army that could afford to be this profligate with its supplies and ammunition, or to an enemy who enjoyed absolute control of the seas. The fact that one of these armies was waning and the other was just beginning to wax only made the disparity in their ways of war more obvious. Why did the Americans resort to naval gunfire at Gela? Because they could.
Also, the whole. North African front (until Torch) was a series of back and forth campaigns. The Italians go East, the British break them and go West. Rommel lands and goes East driving the British, they counter and drive to Tobruk to relieve the siege, Rommel wins and goes East until El Alamein. With logistics being the way they were, it could very well have kept going that way until the Germans wore out. Having the Torch landings meant that Rommel had to divert troops from his fortifications in Western Libya/Tunisia and deal with the Americans.
In North Africa, the Americans meant extra ground troops, more air power so that they gained air superiority (which fucked over logistics badly for the Germans), extra naval power (better logistics for the Allies) so yeah, Torch was a big deal.
The Japanese could barely fucking sustain themselves let alone the Germans. Not only that, german racial sentiment towards the Japanese was still abysmal. The Chinese front had stalled greatly even before the US entered the war due to material constraints.
I agree. 8th army defeated the Germans in north Africa. American troops were in on the kill but the Commonwealth did the fighting and dying for the vast majority.
Without the Germans building massive fortifications similar in scale to what the Soviets built to slow the German army.
The Soviets would still have won, with millions of capable fighting men.
Google "soviet manpower 1945 reddit" I've already linked a few in this post but cba to do it yet again here. The Soviets did not have unlimited manpower and even with millions of Americans and brits in the west, the Soviets were running out of men. If Germany was able to focus entirely on the Soviets then the Soviets would have lost even more men and probably collapse similar to how Russia or Austria-Hungary did in WW1.
October 1, 1941, is when we switched to lend-lease. There were a series of [“protocols”](https://lend-lease.net/files/Soviet_Supply_Protocols.pdf) which continued until Japan’s official surrender in September 1945. Under the protocols, the Soviets paid for about 2% of supplies, the rest financed.
The U.S. asked for $1.3 billion when the war ended; the Soviets offered $170 million. In 1972, the Soviets paid $722 million and the debt was considered paid. If inflation is taken into account, the $722 million accounted for 25% of that $1.3 billion.
The Soviets paid for our victory in blood.
The Americans reached the Yalta lines and didn't continue to push to Berlin because of how costly it would be, they allowed the Soviets to make those sacrifices.
I understand why the Soviets didn't want to pay, we were basically at war with them the moment the war finished. While I understand the importance of the financial and logistic support the west gave to the soviets, I still think a human burden is worth far more than any financial burden.
If it wasn't for the cold war, I'd doubt the Americans would have asked for anything back. I think the Soviets paid for it 100 times over with their death toll.
America was declaring war on them after Pearl Harbor one way or another.
Roosevelt had what he needed to drag the country to war and wanted to focus on Europe anyway.
Hitler just did him a favor by declaring war and making it easier.
>making it easier.
This is like... the crucial bit though.
Even in our timeline there was a lot of resistance to the "Germany first" policy of Roosevelt, both from Congress and military leadership. Without a German declaration of war on America first, this resistance is simply overwhelming IMO.
"Bruh we were bombed by Japan and you want us to declare war on Germany?"
Such a disconnect between Congress and the Executive is one way to get impeached. Not that I think Roosevelt would hold out this hard. He would simply have no choice to focus on Japan instead of Germany.
Congress was - as it so often is - deeply out of touch with broader US opinion. Gallup polls of the time show a near-universal loathing for Nazism and substantial majorities in favour of aid to its enemies even at the cost of provoking war (small majority against the US declaring war, large majority for 'delivering aid even if it means fighting it through'). FDR knew this.
I don't see Putin declaring war on America tbh. And neither would Hitler have if Barbarossa didn't go so well (again contrary to mainstream Reddit opinion).
[As Klaus Schmider strongly argues](https://youtu.be/4LEA1KAK1Ko?t=3817), Hitler wouldn't have declared war on the USA just one or two weeks later when the Soviet counter offensive materialized.
There was actually little resistance after Pearl Harbour. The only reason that FDR did not declare war on Germany immediately was because the US had cracked the Japanese codes, and they knew Germany had committed itself to go to war against the US.
>There was actually little resistance
The Chief of Staff of the United States Army and Fleet Admiral of the USN being against Germany first isn't exactly insignificant. And that was months later anyway. There was barely 96 hours after Pearl Harbor until Germany declared war. The US was rallying around the war against Japan.
Germany first is not relevant here. This is a matter of strategy.
Have a read of this speach by FDR on Dec 9th 1941
https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/december-9-1941-fireside-chat-19-war-japan
Some key points based on this transcript of FDR's Fireside Chat on December 9, 1941, about Germany:
FDR accused Germany of collaborating with Japan, saying their actions were "actual collaboration so well calculated that all the continents of the world, and all the oceans, are now considered by the Axis strategists as one gigantic battlefield."
FDR stated that Germany had been pressuring Japan to attack the United States, promising Japan "the complete and perpetual control of the whole of the Pacific area" in return.
FDR stated that Germany and Japan were "conducting their military and naval operations in accordance with a joint plan."
FDR emphasized that Germany considered itself at war with the United States "just as much as they consider themselves at war with Britain or Russia," even without a formal declaration of war.
I think its fair to say he is going to war with German soon.
and even before Pearl Harbour, the US public had moved.
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/great-debate
That number only increased as Britain continued its standoff with the Germans; by April 1941 polls showed that 68% of Americans favored war against the Axis powers if that was the only way to defeat them.
FDR would have made it happen, even if it risked his presidency. The allies knew Hitler was working on an atomic bomb.
Of course, we now know he was never close to finishing it, and even if they solved the questions about how to build one that works, they would have difficulty getting the materials.
War was always going between Germany and the US. FDR was looking for a reason to join. Japan just made it easier for war to be declared. The real question here was what would happen between Japan and Germany of germany fails to declare war.
What happens in China will be interesting. Chiang Kai Shek was friendly with the Germans until Hitler allied with Japan. The Kuomintang army had German advisors and trainers and exported manganese and other minerals to Germany. The elite soldiers in the Battle of Nanjing wore German style uniforms.
I cant answer your question, but having two parallel wars would change a lot.
Certain neutral countries would stay neutral or pro Axis. Maybe Spain would close the mediterranian after some additional time for stabilization.
Turkey could be a wildcard in mid 1942, maybe preventing Stalingrad via butterfly effects.
No US land lease also means no trucks and fuel etc. for the Soviets, making the relocation of factories to the east way slower. Same for the logistics moving the newly produced arms to the front.
It would be harder for them to prevent a 1941 style collapse in 1942. But if Stalin would allow his troops to retreat to better positions, it could be interpreted as weakness, undermining his domestic position.
Hard to say if the US would commit to the Bomb with all the resources they used in OT, especially as they can fight Japan without mobilizing their entire economy.
The US was already providing supplies to the Soviets prior to the declaration of war. It might be a smaller amount but lend lease would still happen without a formal deceleration of war. Roosevelt was already on the allies side, he was just looking for an excuse to make it official.
I dont think lend lease would come in during the phase of Japanese expansion.
Germany could frame it as a war against Asians, which could get them even more support from certain parts of the US population
Lend lease pre dates Pearl Harbor. I don’t see it stopping because of Pearl. Maybe it comes with the Soviets committing to declaring war on Japan but other than that there is minimal difference.
The Germans and Japan signed a treaty in 1940, it’s going to be hard to convince the US they are enemies. Especially when Roosevelt already wants to be at war by late 1941. Americans are already conducting anti submarine patrols and providing pilots.
In OT, the US sent about 360kt of materials in 1941 and 2.4Mt in 1942.
The total amount 1941-45 was about $10B (x11 for today's money)
It included war materials, fuel and food.
400k jeeps and truks, 12k armored vehicles, 11k aircraft, 1.75 Mt of food.
Idk about knowhow.
Delivery happend via the arctic, persia and the pacific.
The US navy was already shooting at German subs.
If Germany don't declare, then the shipping raids along the US east coast and the beauxite is not disrupted. And the US can build up its forces with even less disruptions.
War was all but unavoidable.
>The US navy was already shooting at German subs.
And importantly, not the other way around. [As Klaus Schmider writes](https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article-abstract/128/4/1926/7458507?redirectedFrom=fulltext), Hitler went to extreme lengths to avoid war with the US, until Japan offered an alliance in November 41.
>War was all but unavoidable.
A cold war perhaps but open war was not unavoidable.
Or because you know America was already in the war by Pearl Harbor, they just hadn’t declared it.
You can’t convince fools that Hitler wins because by 1941 he is at war with powers that combine to be magnitudes more powerful than him and with no real exit plan.
Hitler believed that the “whole rotten stricter ” of the Soviet Union would collapse. When that didn’t happen there was no realistic path to victory for Germany.
Agree. They could have won MAYBE if they changed their whoole world vision and accepted slavic peoples in the east. Even then they would be dragged down by a huge debt from the militarization efforts and would depend on making amphibious assault very costly and eventually making peace.
Yeah, so that scenario is basically "the Nazis could have won by not being fascists". Conflict between fascism and communism was unavoidable: they were always going to end up fighting the USSR which was an enemy *way* above their weight class.
Even then though, picking a fight with the UK was *also* akin to a welterweight fighter getting in to a heavyweight match. The most they could have hoped for was securing an armistice... which would have resulted in economic collapse as their whole economy was built on IOUs that they needed to keep winning to pay off.
Hear hear! Wehrboos be thinking that Germany was invincible because they managed to conquer the rest of Europe by attacking straight into the capital cities and these countries just surrendered. Fact was Germany couldn't be dragged into a war of attrition because of the lack of resources. The whole point Bewungsgungkrieg was specifically tailored for Germany due to their lack of resources.
I've always thought if you take the genocidal policies out of it and it was simply a war of occupation he stood as anyone to pulling off a win. Depends on how a win is defined. If it's just moving east for "living space", there might not be the global outrage
>less people. Less resources
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order\_No.\_227](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._227)
Note the bit where it says:
>Some stupid people at the front calm themselves with talk that we can retreat further to the east, as we have a lot of territory, a lot of ground, a lot of population and that there will always be much bread for us. They want to justify the infamous behaviour at the front. But such talk is a falsehood, helpful only to our enemies.
And as we see, even with millions of American soldiers fighting against the Wehrmacht in France and Italy, and with the USAF destroying German industry. [The USSR was still running out of men.](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/vneo7b/comment/ie7czh2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
The ussr made over twice as many tanks. And lost over twice as many soldiers as Germany.
Sure any country is going to run out of soldiers eventually. But in an attritional conflict the Germans really had little chance of winning. Which is why they needed to keep the momentum to have any chance.
Not even getting into a debate about which side had better weapons etc. the difference in the numbers was just insurmountable.
>The ussr made over twice as many tanks
And with whose raw materials ?
>Sure any country is going to run out of soldiers eventually
"Sure they might run out of men to form functioning formations, but they'd still win"
>But in an attritional conflict the Germans really had little chance of winning.
Not against the British Empire, the USSR AND the USA. We are removing the USA from the equation here. That is the topic of this discussion.
>the difference in the numbers was just insurmountable.
[Indeed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_offensive). Even in Battles hardly anyone today thinks of. The USSR still sustained terrifically high losses.
Stalin still wasn't shooting random soldiers that retreated LOL. The film Enemy at the Gates portraying Komissars shooting retreating soldiers was a literal fabrication. Imagine using Wikipedia as a source LOL. Sure this part of what you said "Some stupid people at the front..." is very true. However order 227 was directed to the officers. Retreating was still possible but it had to be authorised. It's due to the fact that the Germans had already captured about a million Soviet POWs and they just gave up and kept moving back thinking that the country is vast and had inexhaustible resources.
Sure when the Germans started the Invasion of the Soviet Union they outnumbered the Soviets, but by late 1942 onwards, the manpower situation changed as the Soviets had already properly mobilised much more men(and women) for the war effort which the Germans sorely lacked.
Reading Antony Beevor won't help you understand the Eastern Front much because this historian is sorely lacking too much information and has too much cold war bias.
David Glantz is someone you might want to look at for the Eastern Front.
We were already giving Russia massive amounts of material. No matter what the anti American propaganda says, Russia would've been rolled up if we hadn't done it.
Soviet Union* Hahahaha! How untrue! The aid actually shortened the war till 1945. You fail to realise that the Soviets obliterated 90% of the German military. Look, even sending tanks, planes and jeeps without change a whole lot because without men to crew them, they are useless. There isn't any scenario where the Americans would stop aid either because the German threat was very real.
A whole lot of men is useless without the Allied supplied trucks and trains to transport them. Or the high octane fuel to fly, disregarding lend lease aid is sort of strange. There is a reason Zhukov and Khrushchev wrote in their memoirs that the war would have been lost without lend lease
Did you actually read that? It’s sort of hilarious
“Well yes they provided 33% of all explosives but uh, I don’t know what type”
The quoro comment (nice source) is filled with opinion and not fact
The hand waving of Zhukov is sort of funny, I’m glad we can both look at kruschevs own writings
"If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war," he wrote in his memoirs. "One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me."
There is nothing wrong with admitting that lend lease was extremely important to the war effort, I’m not sure the point in downplaying it?
2 out of every three trucks the Soviets used was foreign made, you don’t think that’s war winning?
All of their high octane fuel for planes was foreign, you think they still win without being able to put planes in the air?
50% of all aluminum, 80% of all copper, 1/2 of all railway tracks.
Just mind boggling why someone would disagree to the effect of lend lease
I did and it seems like your source came from RFE which is basically American government propaganda. Sure if you want to keep up with wanting to believe in what you believe, sure. Not going to stop you.
Sure the lend-lease agreement did help but the lend-lease agreement wasn't some kind charity act from the US. It's basically the US paying for other countries to defend the US.
You think my source of kruschevs memoirs came from RFE and not from…..his memoirs? Are you trolling
Which specific, specific, point that I made do you disagree with
Who the hell ever claimed it was a charity act?
Not just aid but also the millions of Americans that directly fought against something like 40 German divisions (at least) and the thousands of USAF aircraft which bombed German industry.
Even when they were bombed IOTL it is said that German production still increased. Imagine the statistics if Germany was bombed even half as much.
Germany in 1939 was still a good 5 years away from being ready for war. They had shit industry and it increased in so much as they kept throwing more and more slaves at industries to boost production.
It increased with allied bombing, it would have still increased without it
Unless the Nazis magically negotiate for peace with Britain and decide not to go in on their alliance with Japan, the USA is going in at some point. Maybe not as soon as things happened in history, but it's still happening.
The big deal is American shipping bringing supplies to the UK. Without interdicting that, the British could fight nearly indefinitely, as they had the Italians bottled in the Mediterranean and the German fleet stuck in the North Sea. The Germans would have to deal with that eventually, and the only way to stem the tide would either be to wait out a political change in the USA, which relies on time the Nazis didn't have, or to deal with the shipping directly. Germans destroy American ships, Roosevelt spins up the war machine.
Remember, El Alamein Part 2: Electric Boogaloo happened before American boots ever hit the ground, and that loss spelled the end of the German effort in Africa.
The declaration of war against Japan was a basic announcement of US entry into the war. Don’t forget that Japan also attacked British territories at the same time. The US, UK & her empire were officially allies.
Europe first would have always been the natural focus, Roosevelt wanted this anyhow and if they were going to have a seat at the table of what would become the “big three” then they would have to enter the war in Europe.
It wouldn’t have been a hard sell to the American public at all.
The US was functionally already at war with Nazi Germany.
By December of 1941 the US was providing substantial aid to the UK, Free French, and was soon to be providing aid to the USSR. This aid was soon to go from lots of aid to a tilde wave of aid.
By December 1941 the US had unilaterally created the Pan American Security Zone which allowed the US to escort convoys a quarter of the way to England and harass/engage any merchant raiders or submarines the US Navy found within that exclusion zone.
By December 1941 the US was occupying Iceland, and Greenland.
What happens in China will be interesting. Chiang Kai Shek was friendly with the Germans until Hitler allied with Japan. The Kuomintang army had German advisors and trainers and exported manganese and other minerals to Germany. The elite Chinese soldiers in the Battle of Nanjing wore German style uniforms.
So, without Hitler joining Japan, China remains on good terms with the Germans. Could Nationalist China turn into something Fascist? I'd say yes, Taiwan was a dictatorship of generals into the 1980s. (So was South Korea).
A dark timeline where China, Japan and Korea are all Nationalist military juntas.
German and American navies were already engaging each other before we entered the war. We were already at war with the Axis powers in all but declarations
Without U.S. aid and military engagement, the war in Europe might have dragged on longer, with a potentially different outcome on both the Eastern and Western fronts. The global geopolitical landscape post-WWII would also be markedly different, affecting everything from the Cold War dynamics to regional power structures in Asia.
Even if Hitler was able to take Moscow, although very unlikely due to the fact that he was already very low on gas. The Soviet Union wouldn't fold either because most of the factories would have been directed further east. Even if the lend-lease program didn't start. The Soviets still would have defeated the Germans albeit the war might have ended in 1947 or 1948.
Hitler was damned from the very start. There was no scenario for his victory at all. Unless Hitler wasn't Hitler and if it was someone else at the helm. Unless sure, if the Axis powers included the US. History would play out very differently but conditions would be very different, as the US in this alternate timeline would not be the US you would be able to recognise too.
Hitler was sorely lacking in gas and he knew that very well(a lot of his generals didn't) that's why you saw the Germans de-motorise and used horses.
Had the Germans continued using their motorised vehicles they have only been able to reach Smolensk. And that's still about 400km to Moscow. But like I said, even taking Moscow wouldn't do much.
Canadians make it to Berlin by 1943. Take Hitler prisoner and fight their way back to the channel where they turn him over to Churchill. War’s over. Do not fuck with the Canadians.
The US Navy and Kriegsmarine were already at war before Hitler officially declared war on the US.
A great example of this is in October of 1941, the USS Reuben James became the first US Navy ship sunk by the Kriegsmarine just under 2 months before was was officially declared.
2 weeks before that, the USS Kearney was the first US Navy ship to be successfully attacked by the Kriegsmarine.
Going back further in April of 1941 US warships were already attacking German U-Boats.
This does not even include US merchant ships sink by the wolf packs. So if you add it up and go by history repeats itself it was only a matter of time until we had a repeat of the RMS Lustinia which leads the US to declare war on Germany especially after Pearl Harbor.
I think the soviets ultimately would have pushed Hitler back. And over a long period Hitler would have been pushed out of the countries he took. Im not sure the British would have been able to pull off even a massively downsized successful amphibious landing in France though.
He would eventually have bounced back on the eastern front, as the Soviets wouldn’t get the lend lease that help them rebuild their forces through 1942 into 1943.
The Germans would probably occupy every major soviet city west of the urals and the Soviets main oil fields in the Caucasus, making any real major soviet counter attack unlikely. Without American supply’s of factory machinery, fuel, trucks, trains, aircraft and food, the Soviet army is basically stuck behind the urals until hunger and infighting kicks in.
Not sure BUT it’s pretty telling that American Jews were BEGGING for this country to save our families and the USA did nothing. Sure does a lot to debunk Jewish control of government theories.
We apparently have proof that the president (Truman? Idk) had a special forces brigade training at the border of us and Canada that would have been doing sneaky war had the US not been comfortable joining the war, heard that in behind the bastards and they're usually good about sources so I believe it.
Were Hitler screwed up was not taking the British totally out of the war. Had he not waited to start the Battle of Britain and kept pushing the RAF he could have defeated England in 1940. By using his U boats to keep the Home Fleet bottled up for even 24 hours hours he could have pushed enough men and materials across. Once England was knocked out were is the USA going to base it's bombers.
They still lose. If he somehow took Moscow, then the scenario gets interesting. Moscow was the primary rail hub in the Soviet Union, and losing it would make moving American lend lease very difficult.
The Red Army would still be a massive factor, but I don’t think they could mount a counter offensive until 1943/44 in that scenario.
Due to lend lease from America, it wouldn't matter. The Germans would still lose because the Russians would have an industrial powerhouse sending them more supplies than the Germans could imagine.
We were gearing up to join the Allies against Germany as early as 1940, definitely by January 1941. It would have happened eventually, the Transatlantic alliance all but guaranteed it
The United States declared war on Germany 3 days AFTER Pearl Harbour. HITLER was not insane enough to declare war on the United States! While most of the ties between Nazi Germany were based very very loosely Hitler was somewhat shocked to have learned about Pearl Harbor. I don't think that it was a stretch to day that Hitler would have moved against Japan had he defeated the Russians and English. He never would have shared world power with any Asian it's very safe to say. And although Germanys quest for an Atomic weapon was well off track the German physicists would have corrected thier approaches given enough time.
If you meant to ask what would have happened if the US didn't enter the European theater, Russia falls by 43. The UK would have fell by 44. Hitler would have won the war.
Russia was already teetering on defeat even after the victory of Stalingrad. The battle of Kursk likely would have faired differently because the Germans would not have had to commit so many troops to France and Italy.
Further, the Germans likely would have been able to force a stale mate with Britain as it was also teetering on defeat in late 41 to mid 42. Especially with the political turmoil inside the British parliament.
There was also a semi strong NAZI movement in the US that could have affected how much support the US gave to the European allies. However, this movement was broken big time because of Hitlers declaration
Of war.
The Nazis being Nazis eventually something would happen like that would Led the US and Germany to War
Maybe a U-Boat sinks a lend lease ship meant for Britain
But no UK and her dominions Alone couldnt invade Europe
Soviet Union would eventually come ahead there's just no way and they are fighting on their own land, "General Winter" (which is an oversimplification of the advantages the USSR's had) aside.
Decolonization happens FAST after the war ends though. Think one or two decades earlier depending on the european overlord.
I’m not sure how the Soviets function without the transportation capabilities or high octane fuel provided by the allies. I think you are massively downplaying lend lease
Well since the US just refuses to declare war on Germany, the Soviets could be able to win if the UK does an indirect lend lease to the Soviets but it’s still costly. The UK pushes the Germans and Italians out and invades Italy but it’s a slow going without American manpower and ships. An Operation Overlord happens but it’s smaller in scale and could take several months more. By the time France gets liberated the Soviets have taken most of Germany.
I just cant see a world where Britain does operation overlord by itself. Granted that Germany was loosing in africa but to say that Britain alone takes over all over africa by itself and then landing in italy and winning by a few months is a VERY big overstatement.
Even if in some fairy-tale land they are able to secure africa and land in italy they are going to get their asses kicked.
I don’t think they are arguing it happens in the same timeline. More that then entire war drags out another 4 years and those events still happen. That’s quite realistic.
The Americans were already heavily involved in the battle for the Atlantic in 1941 so that plays out very similar. As such the British still have control of the seas.
I don’t see why they couldn’t do DDay in 45 or 46. They already had several of the beaches and provided most of the naval support. Plus if the Americans are all in on the pacific the British can send even less that direction.
What about a Sword/Juno/Gold beach only invasion do you think fails?
If the war drags on for another 4 years GERMANY will win. As stated by OP the USSR isnt getting any lend lease and the soviets would be mutilated by the nazis. By then Germany would have all the resources it needs to win a war against the allies.
And if UK still manages to land they would again get their asses kicked.
A few things
1) they still get British lend lease, which was not insignificant
2) Where do you think the Nazis are getting the resources they need to win? They are losing production every year to blockade and strategic bombing.
3) Why would you British get their asses kicked? You are aware the Commonwealth had 3 Normandy beaches where they trounce an SS panzer divison, right?
There is nowhere for the Nazis to get enough manpower or resources to defeat the soviets.
You seriously underestimate the capabilities and resilience of the Nazis. Even with British lend-lease, which was substantial, it's naive to think that the Nazis were completely crippled by blockade and strategic bombing. Their resourcefulness in sustaining production and war efforts is well-documented. As for the British, despite their victories at Normandy, they faced immense challenges and setbacks throughout the war. The Commonwealth's success on three Normandy beaches doesn't negate the immense struggle and losses they endured. The Nazis had extensive territories under their control, providing them with significant manpower and resources to continue their efforts against the Soviets. Dismissing their potential and underestimating their capabilities is a grave oversight.
It's funny how two posts ago, the soviets got no lend lease, but now the British contribution is substantial. It makes me suspect you might not be super well informed on this topic.
As far as the Nazi economy, they did a great job keeping it running despite the blockade and lack of resources, but they didn't do it by being economic geniuses. They did it by running their economy super hot and draining their conquests dry.
If you are genuinely interested in this topic, I'm going to recommend the Wages of destruction by Adam Tooze. It's a history that outlines the challenges the German economy faced and how it was basically caninniblizing itself by 1945 with no ability to keep expanding. This is regardless on if they were getting pushed back in the east or hanging out in a stalemate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wages_of_Destruction
As for the Commonwealth, you are going to have to provide sources if you want to make that claim. They certainly had challenges in the battle of France and early in the war, but by 1942, they were starting to route the Axis in Africa. They provided over half the total troops for D-Day, and they took and held all of their initial objectives. There is absolutely no evidence that they were out classed in 1944
As for manpower and resources, refer to the book linked above. I'm not dismissing them, historians are. The Nazis had already fully tapped those areas. They were facing growing partisan and resistance movements with no real way to tap the manpower which was both depelted and quite anti Nazi.
As far as accepting less than total victory, no. Both Germany and the Soviet Union viewed each other as existential threats. There ideologies didn’t allow the other to survive.
In order to change that you have to fundamentally change who Hitler is.
It’s possible a stalemate forms because they are physically unable to push each other aka Western front WW1 but it would not be a willing choice.
It wouldn't of mattered, and realistically would've just made things worse. Firstly, Roosevelt wanted war with Germany, and no matter what, he was going to get it. It was inevitable. Secondly, now, why did Hitler declare on them though? To keep the tripartite pact together. If he hadn't declared, it would've meant breaking the pact, straining relationships with Italy and mainly Japan incredibly, possibly leading to worse consequences. So, the answer is: best case scenario, nothing, worse case scenario, let your imagination run wild.
What people who say "The communists would take over all of Europe" or "Germany would still be crushed under the might of the Red Army" are blissfully ignorant of the reality of the situation in our timeline of 1945. T[he soviets were running out of men.](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/tdwqhm/what_was_the_manpower_situation_like_for_the/)
Given that Germany fought to the bitter end. I doubt they would settle on a stalemate peace agreement. IMO the USSR would either collapse or surrender outright. The Soviets would lose even more men than they did IOTL with the Allies advancing in Italy and France. Without millions of Americans fighting in France and Italy then the Europeans (let's not forget it wasn't just "the nazis" fighting against the Soviets it was most of Eastern Europe) would have millions of more troops to use against the Soviets also.
And thinking about it, Finland might not have surrendered either without the Allies advancing in Western Europe and the defeat of Germany [abundantly obvious on a map.](https://telescoper.blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/1944-09-15gerww2battlefrontatlas.jpg)
This is of course assuming America never enters the war and everything up until June 1943 happens in roughly the same way it did.
you think america played the decisive factor in defeating the germans? you literally said in your post that germany failed to take moscow before america joined. russia had millions and millions of soldiers, american aid wasnt necessary at all. if america never joined the war europe would be mostly communist, england might liberate france but they would be capable of doing a d day by them selfs so soon like in our timeline. germany was screwed from the beginning, america was just a nail in the coffin.
>you think america played the decisive factor
They were indeed. Kind of like how they are today the decisive factor in Ukraine still fighting as we speak.
Without US aid then Russia starves. Without 3 million US troops in France and Italy then there's 2 million more Germans fighting the Russians. The Russians did not have infinite manpower like it is commonly believed. In fact they were running out by 1945.
> american aid wasnt necessary at all
The Soviets disagreed.
It doesn't matter how many millions of soldiers you have if they don't have guns, shoes, or food.
Just a point of clarification, you would need an earlier POD than Hitler not declaring war on the U.S. because U.S. aid to the Soviets began June 22, 1941, on a “cash and carry” basis (the Soviets paid in gold and other minerals for U.S. supplies), then after September 30, 1941, lend lease (supplies not paid for until later) until September 20, 1945. So well before Pearl Harbor and then the German declaration of war on the U.S., the Soviets were receiving aid.
Assuming no random of declaration of war comes from America, then there also isn't the American armies fighting Rommel in Africa, invading Italy or France. Which allows Germany to focus its entire mobilized economy on the Russians. In our timeline, with the 3 million Allies in Italy and France, the Russians were running out of men in 1945. So at best, in an alternate timeline with these millions of German soldiers available to fight the Russians, it would be a stalemate for Russia somewhere in Eastern Poland.
A big thing was also the US daylight bombing of Europe
I do think this is disregarding the threat posted by the British and Commonwealth forces, which were already pushing German and Italian forces back in North Africa (with American material aid) by the time America joined the war. These forces were also conducting limited raids on the continent and contributed 3/5 beaches in the eventual Invasion of Normandy. While some troops could have been transferred east, I don’t think entire armies of German troops would have been freed up.
Hitler diverted hundreds of tanks and quite a few divisions to North Africa after Operation Torch. Without Torch.... who knows. Perhaps the British eventually win by late 1944 or something. But the British threat was pretty minimal. Even if they eventually kick out the Germans from Africa and are supplied with the equipment necessary for amphibious operations in Italy. When reading about allied operations, the situation is far from what modern 'historians' on Reddit write. >The US Admiral commanding Avalanche declared: ‘The margin of success in the Salerno landing was carried by the naval gun’ And this is even with US troops on the beaches of Salerno and no doubt in a big chunk of the naval support roles in the operation. See Gallipoli or Dieppe for entirely British run amphibious operations.
>The US Admiral commanding Avalanche declared: ‘The margin of success in the Salerno landing was carried by the naval gun’ Yeah this was true at Sicily, Salerno and Anzio. But so what? Robert Citino spends a page of his wehrmacht trilogy debunking the notion that the allies somehow fucked up by leveraging naval gunfire. The allies were more aggressive with their landings because they had naval superiority, and naval gunfire was an integral part of their operational planning. You can be sure the British would have used as much of it as possible to avoid casualties they could ill-afford. So yes, the British would have been much more conservative if US troops weren't participating in North Africa, but Montgomery had already beaten Rommel by the time Torch happened, using US lend-lease tanks, Rommel had to fall back onto his supply lines whether or not the americans were landing. The Citino quote (p. 188, The Wehrmacht Retreats: Fighting a Lost War, 1943) : >On the operational and tactical levels, however, Gela offers an intriguing glimpse of two contrasting ways of war. The Germans had stayed faithful to their traditional recipe: aggressive assault, konzentrisch attack, a Kesselschlacht, even if only in miniature. >As always, they dominated the proceedings early on. Eight hours later, however, they wound up milling around in confusion, unable to hide on an open beach, getting pulverized by multiple sources of superior U.S. firepower. It is unclear what they were trying to surround at Gela, if indeed they were not merely acting according to military doctrine that was in some sense centuries old and perhaps by now merely assumed rather than consciously designed. >As for the American conduct of the Gela fight, it has been all too common in the literature to view the use of naval gunfire in negative terms, as if it were a blot on the honor of the land force. Alternatively, it appears suddenly, as a kind of deus ex machina, swooping out of nowhere to rescue the ground troops and save the day. It was neither. >The use of naval gunfire in the tactical role had been the subject of intensive discussion and negotiation between the army and navy long before Husky brought them all to Sicily. It was not a desperate expedient. Certainly one can identify problems with it. The Boise had to hold its fire repeatedly in the course of the day because the troops on both sides were too closely intermingled and no one in either U.S. service wanted a big-gun fratricide. Naval gunfire is a blunt instrument, not the most delicate or flexible tactical weapon for use in ground combat. It was highly effective at these ranges, however, and from the beginning, it was part of the operational plan. >Those helpless German tanks brewing up one by one had no answer to naval gunfire, as in some sense a resource- and manpower-poor Wehrmacht had no answer to a U.S. Army that could afford to be this profligate with its supplies and ammunition, or to an enemy who enjoyed absolute control of the seas. The fact that one of these armies was waning and the other was just beginning to wax only made the disparity in their ways of war more obvious. Why did the Americans resort to naval gunfire at Gela? Because they could.
Torch was November 42 and Rommel was only beaten in May 43 in a two front war.
rommel's loss at el alamein depleted his forces and he had no choice but to pull all the way back. that was happening whether or not torch happened.
Rommel also knew that American forces were on the way. I doubt he wins Africa against just the British but he stays in Africa far longer.
Also, the whole. North African front (until Torch) was a series of back and forth campaigns. The Italians go East, the British break them and go West. Rommel lands and goes East driving the British, they counter and drive to Tobruk to relieve the siege, Rommel wins and goes East until El Alamein. With logistics being the way they were, it could very well have kept going that way until the Germans wore out. Having the Torch landings meant that Rommel had to divert troops from his fortifications in Western Libya/Tunisia and deal with the Americans. In North Africa, the Americans meant extra ground troops, more air power so that they gained air superiority (which fucked over logistics badly for the Germans), extra naval power (better logistics for the Allies) so yeah, Torch was a big deal.
But we also can't disregard what aid the Japanese would be able to provide if they were not extinction-balled by the USA.
The Japanese could barely fucking sustain themselves let alone the Germans. Not only that, german racial sentiment towards the Japanese was still abysmal. The Chinese front had stalled greatly even before the US entered the war due to material constraints.
I agree. 8th army defeated the Germans in north Africa. American troops were in on the kill but the Commonwealth did the fighting and dying for the vast majority.
Hard to imagine those countries running out of men prior to the Germans.
Without the Germans building massive fortifications similar in scale to what the Soviets built to slow the German army. The Soviets would still have won, with millions of capable fighting men.
Google "soviet manpower 1945 reddit" I've already linked a few in this post but cba to do it yet again here. The Soviets did not have unlimited manpower and even with millions of Americans and brits in the west, the Soviets were running out of men. If Germany was able to focus entirely on the Soviets then the Soviets would have lost even more men and probably collapse similar to how Russia or Austria-Hungary did in WW1.
How long did they continue to pay in gold before we did the lend / lease program with optional repayment?
October 1, 1941, is when we switched to lend-lease. There were a series of [“protocols”](https://lend-lease.net/files/Soviet_Supply_Protocols.pdf) which continued until Japan’s official surrender in September 1945. Under the protocols, the Soviets paid for about 2% of supplies, the rest financed. The U.S. asked for $1.3 billion when the war ended; the Soviets offered $170 million. In 1972, the Soviets paid $722 million and the debt was considered paid. If inflation is taken into account, the $722 million accounted for 25% of that $1.3 billion.
Thank you! Man I will be saving this document, great answer. Much appreciated!
The Soviets paid for our victory in blood. The Americans reached the Yalta lines and didn't continue to push to Berlin because of how costly it would be, they allowed the Soviets to make those sacrifices. I understand why the Soviets didn't want to pay, we were basically at war with them the moment the war finished. While I understand the importance of the financial and logistic support the west gave to the soviets, I still think a human burden is worth far more than any financial burden. If it wasn't for the cold war, I'd doubt the Americans would have asked for anything back. I think the Soviets paid for it 100 times over with their death toll.
Kennedy once discussed this in terms of if the same happened to the USA, everything from the Atlantic all the way to Chicago would’ve been destroyed.
So they were kind of basically at war already haha
America wants its momey back from russia
America was declaring war on them after Pearl Harbor one way or another. Roosevelt had what he needed to drag the country to war and wanted to focus on Europe anyway. Hitler just did him a favor by declaring war and making it easier.
>making it easier. This is like... the crucial bit though. Even in our timeline there was a lot of resistance to the "Germany first" policy of Roosevelt, both from Congress and military leadership. Without a German declaration of war on America first, this resistance is simply overwhelming IMO. "Bruh we were bombed by Japan and you want us to declare war on Germany?" Such a disconnect between Congress and the Executive is one way to get impeached. Not that I think Roosevelt would hold out this hard. He would simply have no choice to focus on Japan instead of Germany.
Congress was - as it so often is - deeply out of touch with broader US opinion. Gallup polls of the time show a near-universal loathing for Nazism and substantial majorities in favour of aid to its enemies even at the cost of provoking war (small majority against the US declaring war, large majority for 'delivering aid even if it means fighting it through'). FDR knew this.
Congress out of touch with public opinion is literally a tale as old as time.
Lend lease was already approved in March 1941.
Yes - and Germany saw that as a de facto declaration of war.
Because it effectively was. Now it looks like history may repeat itself in Ukraine.
I don't see Putin declaring war on America tbh. And neither would Hitler have if Barbarossa didn't go so well (again contrary to mainstream Reddit opinion). [As Klaus Schmider strongly argues](https://youtu.be/4LEA1KAK1Ko?t=3817), Hitler wouldn't have declared war on the USA just one or two weeks later when the Soviet counter offensive materialized.
There was actually little resistance after Pearl Harbour. The only reason that FDR did not declare war on Germany immediately was because the US had cracked the Japanese codes, and they knew Germany had committed itself to go to war against the US.
>There was actually little resistance The Chief of Staff of the United States Army and Fleet Admiral of the USN being against Germany first isn't exactly insignificant. And that was months later anyway. There was barely 96 hours after Pearl Harbor until Germany declared war. The US was rallying around the war against Japan.
Germany first is not relevant here. This is a matter of strategy. Have a read of this speach by FDR on Dec 9th 1941 https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/december-9-1941-fireside-chat-19-war-japan Some key points based on this transcript of FDR's Fireside Chat on December 9, 1941, about Germany: FDR accused Germany of collaborating with Japan, saying their actions were "actual collaboration so well calculated that all the continents of the world, and all the oceans, are now considered by the Axis strategists as one gigantic battlefield." FDR stated that Germany had been pressuring Japan to attack the United States, promising Japan "the complete and perpetual control of the whole of the Pacific area" in return. FDR stated that Germany and Japan were "conducting their military and naval operations in accordance with a joint plan." FDR emphasized that Germany considered itself at war with the United States "just as much as they consider themselves at war with Britain or Russia," even without a formal declaration of war. I think its fair to say he is going to war with German soon. and even before Pearl Harbour, the US public had moved. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/great-debate That number only increased as Britain continued its standoff with the Germans; by April 1941 polls showed that 68% of Americans favored war against the Axis powers if that was the only way to defeat them.
FDR gave hawkish speeches about Germany since like 1935 so, so it wouldn't be anything new though.
There's nothing like this as far as I know. What speech are you thinking of?
FDR would have made it happen, even if it risked his presidency. The allies knew Hitler was working on an atomic bomb. Of course, we now know he was never close to finishing it, and even if they solved the questions about how to build one that works, they would have difficulty getting the materials.
Not if FDR decided to abide by the two term tradition, which every president did. It’s unlikely any successor would be as interventionist as FDR
War was always going between Germany and the US. FDR was looking for a reason to join. Japan just made it easier for war to be declared. The real question here was what would happen between Japan and Germany of germany fails to declare war.
What happens in China will be interesting. Chiang Kai Shek was friendly with the Germans until Hitler allied with Japan. The Kuomintang army had German advisors and trainers and exported manganese and other minerals to Germany. The elite soldiers in the Battle of Nanjing wore German style uniforms.
I cant answer your question, but having two parallel wars would change a lot. Certain neutral countries would stay neutral or pro Axis. Maybe Spain would close the mediterranian after some additional time for stabilization. Turkey could be a wildcard in mid 1942, maybe preventing Stalingrad via butterfly effects. No US land lease also means no trucks and fuel etc. for the Soviets, making the relocation of factories to the east way slower. Same for the logistics moving the newly produced arms to the front. It would be harder for them to prevent a 1941 style collapse in 1942. But if Stalin would allow his troops to retreat to better positions, it could be interpreted as weakness, undermining his domestic position. Hard to say if the US would commit to the Bomb with all the resources they used in OT, especially as they can fight Japan without mobilizing their entire economy.
The US was already providing supplies to the Soviets prior to the declaration of war. It might be a smaller amount but lend lease would still happen without a formal deceleration of war. Roosevelt was already on the allies side, he was just looking for an excuse to make it official.
I dont think lend lease would come in during the phase of Japanese expansion. Germany could frame it as a war against Asians, which could get them even more support from certain parts of the US population
Lend lease pre dates Pearl Harbor. I don’t see it stopping because of Pearl. Maybe it comes with the Soviets committing to declaring war on Japan but other than that there is minimal difference. The Germans and Japan signed a treaty in 1940, it’s going to be hard to convince the US they are enemies. Especially when Roosevelt already wants to be at war by late 1941. Americans are already conducting anti submarine patrols and providing pilots.
How important was Us knowhow and tools for ussrs industrial effort/mass production?
In OT, the US sent about 360kt of materials in 1941 and 2.4Mt in 1942. The total amount 1941-45 was about $10B (x11 for today's money) It included war materials, fuel and food. 400k jeeps and truks, 12k armored vehicles, 11k aircraft, 1.75 Mt of food. Idk about knowhow. Delivery happend via the arctic, persia and the pacific.
I know It’s true but “the US could fight one of the world super powers at the time without mobilising its whole economy” is crazy
The US navy was already shooting at German subs. If Germany don't declare, then the shipping raids along the US east coast and the beauxite is not disrupted. And the US can build up its forces with even less disruptions. War was all but unavoidable.
>The US navy was already shooting at German subs. And importantly, not the other way around. [As Klaus Schmider writes](https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article-abstract/128/4/1926/7458507?redirectedFrom=fulltext), Hitler went to extreme lengths to avoid war with the US, until Japan offered an alliance in November 41. >War was all but unavoidable. A cold war perhaps but open war was not unavoidable.
Hitler will still lose. Because Hitler is Hitler and no amount of rationale will convince fools on this subreddit that Hitler can win the war.
Or because you know America was already in the war by Pearl Harbor, they just hadn’t declared it. You can’t convince fools that Hitler wins because by 1941 he is at war with powers that combine to be magnitudes more powerful than him and with no real exit plan. Hitler believed that the “whole rotten stricter ” of the Soviet Union would collapse. When that didn’t happen there was no realistic path to victory for Germany.
Unironically true. There was nothing the Nazis could have done, no different course of action, that would have resulted in victory.
Agree. They could have won MAYBE if they changed their whoole world vision and accepted slavic peoples in the east. Even then they would be dragged down by a huge debt from the militarization efforts and would depend on making amphibious assault very costly and eventually making peace.
Yeah, so that scenario is basically "the Nazis could have won by not being fascists". Conflict between fascism and communism was unavoidable: they were always going to end up fighting the USSR which was an enemy *way* above their weight class. Even then though, picking a fight with the UK was *also* akin to a welterweight fighter getting in to a heavyweight match. The most they could have hoped for was securing an armistice... which would have resulted in economic collapse as their whole economy was built on IOUs that they needed to keep winning to pay off.
Hear hear! Wehrboos be thinking that Germany was invincible because they managed to conquer the rest of Europe by attacking straight into the capital cities and these countries just surrendered. Fact was Germany couldn't be dragged into a war of attrition because of the lack of resources. The whole point Bewungsgungkrieg was specifically tailored for Germany due to their lack of resources.
Well, yeah? Only way for german nazis to win WW2 is if they were not nazis (or if they had ability to know future)
I've always thought if you take the genocidal policies out of it and it was simply a war of occupation he stood as anyone to pulling off a win. Depends on how a win is defined. If it's just moving east for "living space", there might not be the global outrage
Ok but they had less people. Less resources. Less weapons. Once they lost the momentum from their initial thrust it was just a matter of time.
>less people. Less resources [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order\_No.\_227](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._227) Note the bit where it says: >Some stupid people at the front calm themselves with talk that we can retreat further to the east, as we have a lot of territory, a lot of ground, a lot of population and that there will always be much bread for us. They want to justify the infamous behaviour at the front. But such talk is a falsehood, helpful only to our enemies. And as we see, even with millions of American soldiers fighting against the Wehrmacht in France and Italy, and with the USAF destroying German industry. [The USSR was still running out of men.](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/vneo7b/comment/ie7czh2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
The ussr made over twice as many tanks. And lost over twice as many soldiers as Germany. Sure any country is going to run out of soldiers eventually. But in an attritional conflict the Germans really had little chance of winning. Which is why they needed to keep the momentum to have any chance. Not even getting into a debate about which side had better weapons etc. the difference in the numbers was just insurmountable.
>The ussr made over twice as many tanks And with whose raw materials ? >Sure any country is going to run out of soldiers eventually "Sure they might run out of men to form functioning formations, but they'd still win" >But in an attritional conflict the Germans really had little chance of winning. Not against the British Empire, the USSR AND the USA. We are removing the USA from the equation here. That is the topic of this discussion. >the difference in the numbers was just insurmountable. [Indeed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_offensive). Even in Battles hardly anyone today thinks of. The USSR still sustained terrifically high losses.
Stalin still wasn't shooting random soldiers that retreated LOL. The film Enemy at the Gates portraying Komissars shooting retreating soldiers was a literal fabrication. Imagine using Wikipedia as a source LOL. Sure this part of what you said "Some stupid people at the front..." is very true. However order 227 was directed to the officers. Retreating was still possible but it had to be authorised. It's due to the fact that the Germans had already captured about a million Soviet POWs and they just gave up and kept moving back thinking that the country is vast and had inexhaustible resources. Sure when the Germans started the Invasion of the Soviet Union they outnumbered the Soviets, but by late 1942 onwards, the manpower situation changed as the Soviets had already properly mobilised much more men(and women) for the war effort which the Germans sorely lacked. Reading Antony Beevor won't help you understand the Eastern Front much because this historian is sorely lacking too much information and has too much cold war bias. David Glantz is someone you might want to look at for the Eastern Front.
We were already giving Russia massive amounts of material. No matter what the anti American propaganda says, Russia would've been rolled up if we hadn't done it.
Soviet Union* Hahahaha! How untrue! The aid actually shortened the war till 1945. You fail to realise that the Soviets obliterated 90% of the German military. Look, even sending tanks, planes and jeeps without change a whole lot because without men to crew them, they are useless. There isn't any scenario where the Americans would stop aid either because the German threat was very real.
A whole lot of men is useless without the Allied supplied trucks and trains to transport them. Or the high octane fuel to fly, disregarding lend lease aid is sort of strange. There is a reason Zhukov and Khrushchev wrote in their memoirs that the war would have been lost without lend lease
Have a look here https://crithis.quora.com/Was-Zhukov-right-about-Lend-lease-saving-the-USSR
Did you actually read that? It’s sort of hilarious “Well yes they provided 33% of all explosives but uh, I don’t know what type” The quoro comment (nice source) is filled with opinion and not fact The hand waving of Zhukov is sort of funny, I’m glad we can both look at kruschevs own writings "If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war," he wrote in his memoirs. "One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me." There is nothing wrong with admitting that lend lease was extremely important to the war effort, I’m not sure the point in downplaying it? 2 out of every three trucks the Soviets used was foreign made, you don’t think that’s war winning? All of their high octane fuel for planes was foreign, you think they still win without being able to put planes in the air? 50% of all aluminum, 80% of all copper, 1/2 of all railway tracks. Just mind boggling why someone would disagree to the effect of lend lease
I did and it seems like your source came from RFE which is basically American government propaganda. Sure if you want to keep up with wanting to believe in what you believe, sure. Not going to stop you. Sure the lend-lease agreement did help but the lend-lease agreement wasn't some kind charity act from the US. It's basically the US paying for other countries to defend the US.
You think my source of kruschevs memoirs came from RFE and not from…..his memoirs? Are you trolling Which specific, specific, point that I made do you disagree with Who the hell ever claimed it was a charity act?
Not just aid but also the millions of Americans that directly fought against something like 40 German divisions (at least) and the thousands of USAF aircraft which bombed German industry. Even when they were bombed IOTL it is said that German production still increased. Imagine the statistics if Germany was bombed even half as much.
Sorry, millions of Americans fighting directly against the Germans before declaration of war?
No obviously Americans wouldn't directly be fighting Germany without a declaration of war.
The US Navy and Kriegsmarine were already in a shooting war by as early as April 1941.
Germany in 1939 was still a good 5 years away from being ready for war. They had shit industry and it increased in so much as they kept throwing more and more slaves at industries to boost production. It increased with allied bombing, it would have still increased without it
The US would use some other excuse. Uboats sinking our transports. German spy’s on the East Coast. Whatever.
Unless the Nazis magically negotiate for peace with Britain and decide not to go in on their alliance with Japan, the USA is going in at some point. Maybe not as soon as things happened in history, but it's still happening. The big deal is American shipping bringing supplies to the UK. Without interdicting that, the British could fight nearly indefinitely, as they had the Italians bottled in the Mediterranean and the German fleet stuck in the North Sea. The Germans would have to deal with that eventually, and the only way to stem the tide would either be to wait out a political change in the USA, which relies on time the Nazis didn't have, or to deal with the shipping directly. Germans destroy American ships, Roosevelt spins up the war machine. Remember, El Alamein Part 2: Electric Boogaloo happened before American boots ever hit the ground, and that loss spelled the end of the German effort in Africa.
The declaration of war against Japan was a basic announcement of US entry into the war. Don’t forget that Japan also attacked British territories at the same time. The US, UK & her empire were officially allies. Europe first would have always been the natural focus, Roosevelt wanted this anyhow and if they were going to have a seat at the table of what would become the “big three” then they would have to enter the war in Europe. It wouldn’t have been a hard sell to the American public at all.
The US was functionally already at war with Nazi Germany. By December of 1941 the US was providing substantial aid to the UK, Free French, and was soon to be providing aid to the USSR. This aid was soon to go from lots of aid to a tilde wave of aid. By December 1941 the US had unilaterally created the Pan American Security Zone which allowed the US to escort convoys a quarter of the way to England and harass/engage any merchant raiders or submarines the US Navy found within that exclusion zone. By December 1941 the US was occupying Iceland, and Greenland.
What happens in China will be interesting. Chiang Kai Shek was friendly with the Germans until Hitler allied with Japan. The Kuomintang army had German advisors and trainers and exported manganese and other minerals to Germany. The elite Chinese soldiers in the Battle of Nanjing wore German style uniforms. So, without Hitler joining Japan, China remains on good terms with the Germans. Could Nationalist China turn into something Fascist? I'd say yes, Taiwan was a dictatorship of generals into the 1980s. (So was South Korea). A dark timeline where China, Japan and Korea are all Nationalist military juntas.
I read a great book about the days between Pearl Harbor hitler Declaring War. In short, it sorted the war out for GB, among other things.
German and American navies were already engaging each other before we entered the war. We were already at war with the Axis powers in all but declarations
Without U.S. aid and military engagement, the war in Europe might have dragged on longer, with a potentially different outcome on both the Eastern and Western fronts. The global geopolitical landscape post-WWII would also be markedly different, affecting everything from the Cold War dynamics to regional power structures in Asia.
Even if Hitler was able to take Moscow, although very unlikely due to the fact that he was already very low on gas. The Soviet Union wouldn't fold either because most of the factories would have been directed further east. Even if the lend-lease program didn't start. The Soviets still would have defeated the Germans albeit the war might have ended in 1947 or 1948. Hitler was damned from the very start. There was no scenario for his victory at all. Unless Hitler wasn't Hitler and if it was someone else at the helm. Unless sure, if the Axis powers included the US. History would play out very differently but conditions would be very different, as the US in this alternate timeline would not be the US you would be able to recognise too. Hitler was sorely lacking in gas and he knew that very well(a lot of his generals didn't) that's why you saw the Germans de-motorise and used horses. Had the Germans continued using their motorised vehicles they have only been able to reach Smolensk. And that's still about 400km to Moscow. But like I said, even taking Moscow wouldn't do much.
I guess somebody forgot that the US was already sending Lend-Lease supplies to the Soviets in June 1941.
Canadians make it to Berlin by 1943. Take Hitler prisoner and fight their way back to the channel where they turn him over to Churchill. War’s over. Do not fuck with the Canadians.
The US Navy and Kriegsmarine were already at war before Hitler officially declared war on the US. A great example of this is in October of 1941, the USS Reuben James became the first US Navy ship sunk by the Kriegsmarine just under 2 months before was was officially declared. 2 weeks before that, the USS Kearney was the first US Navy ship to be successfully attacked by the Kriegsmarine. Going back further in April of 1941 US warships were already attacking German U-Boats. This does not even include US merchant ships sink by the wolf packs. So if you add it up and go by history repeats itself it was only a matter of time until we had a repeat of the RMS Lustinia which leads the US to declare war on Germany especially after Pearl Harbor.
I think the soviets ultimately would have pushed Hitler back. And over a long period Hitler would have been pushed out of the countries he took. Im not sure the British would have been able to pull off even a massively downsized successful amphibious landing in France though.
He would eventually have bounced back on the eastern front, as the Soviets wouldn’t get the lend lease that help them rebuild their forces through 1942 into 1943. The Germans would probably occupy every major soviet city west of the urals and the Soviets main oil fields in the Caucasus, making any real major soviet counter attack unlikely. Without American supply’s of factory machinery, fuel, trucks, trains, aircraft and food, the Soviet army is basically stuck behind the urals until hunger and infighting kicks in.
Not sure BUT it’s pretty telling that American Jews were BEGGING for this country to save our families and the USA did nothing. Sure does a lot to debunk Jewish control of government theories.
I don't think it would have mattered, after Pearl Harbor the writing was on the wall and the US would have gotten involved in Europe anyway.
But would the Us public accept going to war with germany?
We apparently have proof that the president (Truman? Idk) had a special forces brigade training at the border of us and Canada that would have been doing sneaky war had the US not been comfortable joining the war, heard that in behind the bastards and they're usually good about sources so I believe it.
Were Hitler screwed up was not taking the British totally out of the war. Had he not waited to start the Battle of Britain and kept pushing the RAF he could have defeated England in 1940. By using his U boats to keep the Home Fleet bottled up for even 24 hours hours he could have pushed enough men and materials across. Once England was knocked out were is the USA going to base it's bombers.
They still lose. If he somehow took Moscow, then the scenario gets interesting. Moscow was the primary rail hub in the Soviet Union, and losing it would make moving American lend lease very difficult. The Red Army would still be a massive factor, but I don’t think they could mount a counter offensive until 1943/44 in that scenario.
No atom bomb by 1945. Russians take all of Germany go all the way to France.
Due to lend lease from America, it wouldn't matter. The Germans would still lose because the Russians would have an industrial powerhouse sending them more supplies than the Germans could imagine.
FDR wanted war and he would have had it irrespective of Hitler. WW2 was a clash of civilizations, and Nazi Germany won — then lost — the struggle.
We were gearing up to join the Allies against Germany as early as 1940, definitely by January 1941. It would have happened eventually, the Transatlantic alliance all but guaranteed it
Here for my what if Nazi crap 💩 of the day
The United States declared war on Germany 3 days AFTER Pearl Harbour. HITLER was not insane enough to declare war on the United States! While most of the ties between Nazi Germany were based very very loosely Hitler was somewhat shocked to have learned about Pearl Harbor. I don't think that it was a stretch to day that Hitler would have moved against Japan had he defeated the Russians and English. He never would have shared world power with any Asian it's very safe to say. And although Germanys quest for an Atomic weapon was well off track the German physicists would have corrected thier approaches given enough time.
If you meant to ask what would have happened if the US didn't enter the European theater, Russia falls by 43. The UK would have fell by 44. Hitler would have won the war. Russia was already teetering on defeat even after the victory of Stalingrad. The battle of Kursk likely would have faired differently because the Germans would not have had to commit so many troops to France and Italy. Further, the Germans likely would have been able to force a stale mate with Britain as it was also teetering on defeat in late 41 to mid 42. Especially with the political turmoil inside the British parliament. There was also a semi strong NAZI movement in the US that could have affected how much support the US gave to the European allies. However, this movement was broken big time because of Hitlers declaration Of war.
Soviets probably end up owning most of Europe
The Nazis being Nazis eventually something would happen like that would Led the US and Germany to War Maybe a U-Boat sinks a lend lease ship meant for Britain But no UK and her dominions Alone couldnt invade Europe
Soviet Union would eventually come ahead there's just no way and they are fighting on their own land, "General Winter" (which is an oversimplification of the advantages the USSR's had) aside. Decolonization happens FAST after the war ends though. Think one or two decades earlier depending on the european overlord.
"General Winter" is not real because the Soviets still had big losses in winter. You make it seem like the Red Army soldiers were not humans.
Learn to read. I said it's an oversimplification.
I’m not sure how the Soviets function without the transportation capabilities or high octane fuel provided by the allies. I think you are massively downplaying lend lease
Well since the US just refuses to declare war on Germany, the Soviets could be able to win if the UK does an indirect lend lease to the Soviets but it’s still costly. The UK pushes the Germans and Italians out and invades Italy but it’s a slow going without American manpower and ships. An Operation Overlord happens but it’s smaller in scale and could take several months more. By the time France gets liberated the Soviets have taken most of Germany.
I just cant see a world where Britain does operation overlord by itself. Granted that Germany was loosing in africa but to say that Britain alone takes over all over africa by itself and then landing in italy and winning by a few months is a VERY big overstatement. Even if in some fairy-tale land they are able to secure africa and land in italy they are going to get their asses kicked.
I don’t think they are arguing it happens in the same timeline. More that then entire war drags out another 4 years and those events still happen. That’s quite realistic. The Americans were already heavily involved in the battle for the Atlantic in 1941 so that plays out very similar. As such the British still have control of the seas. I don’t see why they couldn’t do DDay in 45 or 46. They already had several of the beaches and provided most of the naval support. Plus if the Americans are all in on the pacific the British can send even less that direction. What about a Sword/Juno/Gold beach only invasion do you think fails?
If the war drags on for another 4 years GERMANY will win. As stated by OP the USSR isnt getting any lend lease and the soviets would be mutilated by the nazis. By then Germany would have all the resources it needs to win a war against the allies. And if UK still manages to land they would again get their asses kicked.
A few things 1) they still get British lend lease, which was not insignificant 2) Where do you think the Nazis are getting the resources they need to win? They are losing production every year to blockade and strategic bombing. 3) Why would you British get their asses kicked? You are aware the Commonwealth had 3 Normandy beaches where they trounce an SS panzer divison, right? There is nowhere for the Nazis to get enough manpower or resources to defeat the soviets.
You seriously underestimate the capabilities and resilience of the Nazis. Even with British lend-lease, which was substantial, it's naive to think that the Nazis were completely crippled by blockade and strategic bombing. Their resourcefulness in sustaining production and war efforts is well-documented. As for the British, despite their victories at Normandy, they faced immense challenges and setbacks throughout the war. The Commonwealth's success on three Normandy beaches doesn't negate the immense struggle and losses they endured. The Nazis had extensive territories under their control, providing them with significant manpower and resources to continue their efforts against the Soviets. Dismissing their potential and underestimating their capabilities is a grave oversight.
It's funny how two posts ago, the soviets got no lend lease, but now the British contribution is substantial. It makes me suspect you might not be super well informed on this topic. As far as the Nazi economy, they did a great job keeping it running despite the blockade and lack of resources, but they didn't do it by being economic geniuses. They did it by running their economy super hot and draining their conquests dry. If you are genuinely interested in this topic, I'm going to recommend the Wages of destruction by Adam Tooze. It's a history that outlines the challenges the German economy faced and how it was basically caninniblizing itself by 1945 with no ability to keep expanding. This is regardless on if they were getting pushed back in the east or hanging out in a stalemate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wages_of_Destruction As for the Commonwealth, you are going to have to provide sources if you want to make that claim. They certainly had challenges in the battle of France and early in the war, but by 1942, they were starting to route the Axis in Africa. They provided over half the total troops for D-Day, and they took and held all of their initial objectives. There is absolutely no evidence that they were out classed in 1944 As for manpower and resources, refer to the book linked above. I'm not dismissing them, historians are. The Nazis had already fully tapped those areas. They were facing growing partisan and resistance movements with no real way to tap the manpower which was both depelted and quite anti Nazi.
As far as accepting less than total victory, no. Both Germany and the Soviet Union viewed each other as existential threats. There ideologies didn’t allow the other to survive. In order to change that you have to fundamentally change who Hitler is. It’s possible a stalemate forms because they are physically unable to push each other aka Western front WW1 but it would not be a willing choice.
It wouldn't of mattered, and realistically would've just made things worse. Firstly, Roosevelt wanted war with Germany, and no matter what, he was going to get it. It was inevitable. Secondly, now, why did Hitler declare on them though? To keep the tripartite pact together. If he hadn't declared, it would've meant breaking the pact, straining relationships with Italy and mainly Japan incredibly, possibly leading to worse consequences. So, the answer is: best case scenario, nothing, worse case scenario, let your imagination run wild.
Realistically, I don't know if strained relationships with Japan would have mattered much.
A useless “ally” is still better than a possible enemy, so it matters.
What people who say "The communists would take over all of Europe" or "Germany would still be crushed under the might of the Red Army" are blissfully ignorant of the reality of the situation in our timeline of 1945. T[he soviets were running out of men.](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/tdwqhm/what_was_the_manpower_situation_like_for_the/) Given that Germany fought to the bitter end. I doubt they would settle on a stalemate peace agreement. IMO the USSR would either collapse or surrender outright. The Soviets would lose even more men than they did IOTL with the Allies advancing in Italy and France. Without millions of Americans fighting in France and Italy then the Europeans (let's not forget it wasn't just "the nazis" fighting against the Soviets it was most of Eastern Europe) would have millions of more troops to use against the Soviets also. And thinking about it, Finland might not have surrendered either without the Allies advancing in Western Europe and the defeat of Germany [abundantly obvious on a map.](https://telescoper.blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/1944-09-15gerww2battlefrontatlas.jpg) This is of course assuming America never enters the war and everything up until June 1943 happens in roughly the same way it did.
you think america played the decisive factor in defeating the germans? you literally said in your post that germany failed to take moscow before america joined. russia had millions and millions of soldiers, american aid wasnt necessary at all. if america never joined the war europe would be mostly communist, england might liberate france but they would be capable of doing a d day by them selfs so soon like in our timeline. germany was screwed from the beginning, america was just a nail in the coffin.
>you think america played the decisive factor They were indeed. Kind of like how they are today the decisive factor in Ukraine still fighting as we speak. Without US aid then Russia starves. Without 3 million US troops in France and Italy then there's 2 million more Germans fighting the Russians. The Russians did not have infinite manpower like it is commonly believed. In fact they were running out by 1945.
> american aid wasnt necessary at all The Soviets disagreed. It doesn't matter how many millions of soldiers you have if they don't have guns, shoes, or food.