Would the Allies have won World War II if the USA did not take part?

[Tomana]

No, with out the US the allies would have lost. If Germany had extra time they would have had the first Atomic Weapon, they were closer then we were when Germany finally fell.

They wouldn't, because their atomic project simply would not work. Plus, having 4 competing teams didn't help the project. -_-

[Monoxyde]

And the fact that Americans like to be involved in any and every kind of conflict.

someone likes to hate.

[Reeve]

Yes. A lot more german soldiers died on the Eastern Front than the Western Front. What would have been different is that the Russians would have taken ALL of Germany and would have been in a much stronger position going into the Cold War.

[ati87]

Weren't the germans losing the war before the US got active in Europe....

[Deleted]

Weren't the germans losing the war before the US got active in Europe....

They were; the Russians were already pushing back towards Germany by the time America got involved.

[Deleted]

I think having half your army split between Russia and Europe probably played one of the biggest parts in the Nazi's downfall.

[Mayhem]

Yes; it would have cost us a lot more in lives and ground our economy further into the dust; but Germany would have fallen. All the US did was speed things up by providing fresh troops and resources; Hitler had already made the mistake of invading Russia mid-winter by then.

and thats the point, if the us didn´t speed things up, nazi-germany would´ve gotten the fastest aircrafts of that era, and if they had the time to build more than just a bunch of them, the rest of the world would pretty much be gone to hell... even with the us and the a-bomb

[Nadev]

I don't think so. America distracted the Japanese with their right hand and smacked the Germans around with their left. I don't think Russia or England had the military capabilites, manpower or technology to do that.

[Klausk]

Don't forget the Soviets. I think the Allies combined with the pushback from the Soviets after Stalingrad would have been enough to win against Germany & Italy. However, I'm not so sure what the Japanese would have done if they wouldn't have dragged the US into the war. If they went to support Germany & Italy in Europe then I think I would speak German today.

[Jager]

They wouldn't, because their atomic project simply would not work. Plus, having 4 competitive team didn't help the project. -_-

Remember the film Dam busters? That was a operation to stop the Germans harnessing heavy water, a vital component to making atomic bombs (not sure where is plays it's role, i studied that a long time ago) And the blowing up of those dams put the germans over a year back in making their atomic bombs, the time of which was used to defeat the Germans.

The Uranium used by the Germans as also being sent to Japan by U boat just before the end of the war but was captured by the Americans and used in their own A-bombs. Allot of the research material on the atomic bombs were also stolen from the Germans. Altho even more was also the good work of US scientists

[Kyulan]

Freed Netherlands, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Denmark, Finland and Germany- yes Germany

Hey Jeina. I find your post very inaccurate and I as many others have some knowledge about World War II. But history books are written differently in each parts of the world and I dont have anything in here I could quote so I'll bite into that one claim because it something I know something about. Being Finnish and all.

US freed Finland... from who? The only country Finland fought between 1939 and 1945 is the Soviet Russia. Soviet Russia conquered most of Baltic countries including Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania but Finns fought back with some armed help from the Germans. I would like to point out here that Finland was not an Axis state. The war between Finland and Soviet Russia ended with some land and plenty of man loss. There were zero Allied units in Finland during World War II.

[Tomana]

In one word: yes, they would still win. Most Germans troops after 1941 were committed to USSR (roughly 80 to 85%, except aviation where it's 50/50) and the major part of WWII number-wise was happening there. There was an economical aspect which is not to be neglected (land lease) but ironically enough it really started kicking in in late 1942/early 1943, where it became quite obvious that Germany would not win the battle on Eastern Front.

So, yes, UK and USSR (plus French gvt in exile and stuff) would still have won without the USA. It would take longer, perhaps, but the issue of the whole thing was set after 1942.

[rayvio]

it would've taken longer and there would have been a lot more losses but I think the Allies would have still won eventually

[Tomana]

US freed Finland... from who? The only country Finland fought between 1939 and 1945 is the Soviet Russia. Soviet Russia conquered most of Baltic countries including Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania but Finns fought back with some armed help from the Germans. I would like to point out here that Finland was not an Axis state. The war between Finland and Soviet Russia ended with some land and plenty of man loss. There were zero Allied units in Finland during World War II.

Finland housed Axis (German, to be exact) troops and launched a war against USSR on June 21st, 1941. Yes, they fought in 1939-1940, but they signed a treaty to end it. If you house German troops, expect to be treated like a country participating in a war of agression.

[DraconusIX]

Varies to what extent the US does not get involved. If the US had completely stopped trading with both britain and germany, which it likely would of had to do to stay neutral, britain would of lost the war. they would of run out of fuel at the very least.

the real question then is if USSR could of defeated germany and/or japan I think there is a very good chance you would of ended up with a world similiar to that of 1984 in terms of geography.

[Deleted]

I don't think Russia or England had the military capabilites, manpower or technology to do that.

I don't think Russia ... had the ... manpower ... to do that

Oh trust me. Russia had the manpower. Of that, there is no doubt.

[Deleted]

Hitler had an advantage over the allies in the beginning of the war. The Wehrmacht cornered the allies and Hitler refused to act on the opportunity, and gave Britain the chance to evacuate and aid/supply. Should he have given the command to conquer them at this point, Britain's forces would have been demolished and the course of the war may have changed.
There were many situations where the Nazi army's blitzkrieg tactics were halted. If they were truly relentless, the outcome of the war could have been horrendous.

Let's just be thankful that the allies all came together and stopped the German campaign!

-My ancestors were Deutsche and most of them were killed off during this campaign. Survivors fled to America. Love this country!

This and only this exactly is the reason why the German Reich lost the war. Many historians claim and approve this statement.

Although I live in Germany I don't care about the outcome of this war. This belongs to the past. I also speak fluent Russian :P

[Jager]

I think having half your army split between Russia and Europe probably played one of the biggest parts in the Nazi's downfall.

I find it funny how few people really appreciate the might of Nazi Germany, to think that one country was capable of taking on the rest of Europe twice in 50 years and come within a hand full of stupid mistakes of winning, that's pretty damn impressive.

[Deleted]

Even though Germany was ahead of the rest of the world in some ways back then (technologically speaking), the huge inequalities and suppressions of the NS regime would have eventually led to enough internal opposition and revolutionary tendencies that the NSDAP couldn't possibly have kept up the huge effort put into the industrial elimination of minorities, the massive production of war material, the huge funds for research in weapon technology and the suppression not only of inner-political opposition, but also of guerrilla warfare in occupied territories.

There were also lots of strategical and diplomatic mistakes, isolating the NS regime even further. The huge loss of human lives couldn't even be balanced regarding the recruiting needs of the German army, even leading to children being used as soldiers within the last stages of the war.

Anybody who says that Germany could have won WWII is simply not looking at the historical facts but rather idealizing a regime which has nothing to serve as ideals in the first place. Likewise, there have been many myths regarding the loss of WWI (stab-in-the-back legend), achieving nothing but spreading lies and historical misinformations, being utilized for strengthening fascist movements.

[Kyulan]

Finland housed Axis (German, to be exact) troops and launched a war against USSR on June 21st, 1941. Yes, they fought in 1939-1940, but they signed a treaty to end it. If you house German troops, expect to be treated like a country participating in a war of agression.

I did not say anything that is opposed to what you say nor do I disagree with you. But that someone would've freed Finland? In the end of the war Finland had to fight back against those Germans in the Lapland War in which the Germans upon retreating literally burned half of Finnish Lapland.