Ww2 Allied victory without USA?

[Remington 2.0]

I been reading that some people believe that the British empire and It's allies could have defeated Germany without the USA being at war with Germany and part of British alliance is it true or false?

 

[Questerr]

So long as the US continues Lend Lease, then yeah.

Although Europe is going to be a lot more communist when it’s over..

 

[Alternator]

As long as the Americans continue to funnel money and supplies to the Soviet Union and Great Britain, then the Allied Powers have a chance to win. It's not the British Empire doing the heavy lifting, however - it's the Soviet Union.

If the Americans remain neutral in actions as well as name, meaning no economic assistance, then it's down to the butterflies of whatever PoD caused that neutrality.

 

[AltoRegnant]

There will be no west germany, just the DDR and the French territory on the border. But yea

 

[Sarthak]

If the Americans continue their 1939 to 1941 rhetoric of passing goods off to the British and Later Soviets, yeah they will. Probably a united German communist state instead of a divided Germany though.

 

[History Learner]

Without American entry, the Axis unquestionably defeats and the USSR and then fights the UK to a stalemate at absolute worst. To quote from Denis Havlat's articles on Lend Lease, part 2, from the Journal of Slavic Military Studies:

Overall, the Western Allies were responsible only for a small fraction of the losses sustained by German infantry and armor between 1941 and 1943 (around 10 percent); however, their contribution in the destruction and occupation of the Luftwaffe was overwhelming. The same applies to their contribution in forcing the Germans to leave most heavy artillery in the Reich as anti-aircraft weapons, preventing them from being used as anti-tank weapons in the East. Without Allied military intervention, the Germans could have sent at least 2,000 additional tanks, some 5,000 additional 88 mm anti-aircraft guns, around 15,000 additional aircraft, tens of thousands of additional motor vehicles, and up to half a million additional soldiers to the Eastern Front in the years 1941–1943, which would have shifted the balance in their favor.​

Further on:

Without the need to fight in the Atlantic; to transport large amounts of troops, equipment, and supplies across the entire continent; and the necessity to defend against Allied bombing, Germany could have massively reduced its U-boat, locomotive, and anti-aircraft gun and ammunition production and converted at least part of these capacities into the production of more aircraft and equipment for land warfare. Additionally, without bombing, and the need to maintain a large enough army to fight on several fronts, there would have been less need to use forced labor in the factories, thus boosting production. Historically, Germany already outproduced the USSR in certain areas like locomotives, trucks, and even bombers, with 12,664 produced by Germany in the years 1941–1943 as compared to 11,359 built by the USSR.170 Without Allied intervention and Lend-Lease, Soviet margins in these areas would most likely have widened, while margins in areas such as tanks would have shrunk significantly. If Germany and its industry could have concentrated on one single front from 1941 onwards, it most likely would have vastly changed the outcome of the war in the East.​

 

[marathag]

massively reduced its U-boat, locomotive,

Even without Typhoons and P-47 putting Rockets into them, they never had enough for proper logistics in the East.
Germans claimed around 15,000 locomotives destroyed.

Good Job!

But that's the number you needed to move things around the USSR in the West half in the country.
The other problem is that the Soviet Locomotives typically carried twice the tonnage of a German freight Consist, over a longer distance, fewer water stops.

that's the difference in moving large amounts of freight around the country. Germany didn't have that problem, unlike the USA, USSR and South Africa, and all went for heavy duty locos. Germans didn't have those, or really even plans for building ones to match that capacity that was wrecked in the Invasion

Germany needed every Steam Engine that could be built, and really needed to build more

 

[Sarthak]

Without Allied intervention and Lend-Lease

The OP says no American intervention in the war. America by 1940 had been doing the lend lease to Britain already. Through the lend lease Britain was leasing to the Soviets as well. America sticking to lend lease means the German logistical capability is still shot to hell

 

[History Learner]

The OP says no American intervention in the war. America by 1940 had been doing the lend lease to Britain already. Through the lend lease Britain was leasing to the Soviets as well. America sticking to lend lease means the German logistical capability is still shot to hell

And the quote bits from Havlat deal with exactly that; Lend Lease but not direct military intervention. His conclusion, which was peer reviewed, was that it’d make no difference: the Soviets would still loose.

 

[Post]

And the quote bits from Havlat deal with exactly that; Lend Lease but not direct military intervention. His conclusion, which was peer reviewed, was that it’d make no difference: the Soviets would still loose.

The parts you quote say " without the need to fight in the Atlantic" and "if Germany and its industry could have concentrated on one single front from 1941 onwards". With lend-lease the Germans still need to fight in the Atlantic and in NA., so they can't focus on one single front.

Your quote says: "it most likely would have vastly changed the outcome of the war in the East." this =/= "the Axis unquestionably defeats the USSR ".

 

[Sarthak]

The parts you quote say " without the need to fight in the Atlantic" and "if Germany and its industry could have concentrated on one single front from 1941 onwards". With lend-lease the Germans still need to fight in the Atlantic and in NA., so they can't focus on one single front.

Your quote says: "it most likely would have vastly changed the outcome of the war in the East." this =/= "the Axis unquestionably defeats the USSR ".

He also forgets to mention that many German munitions were going to North Africa, where if it hadn't been for Rommel utilizing the available resources to his advantage, the British were trouncing the Axis in North Africa. Even after the Afrika Korps arrived, the British won 90% of their engagements when Rommel wasn't in the picture.

 

[Sarthak]

He also forgets to mention that many German munitions were going to North Africa, where if it hadn't been for Rommel utilizing the available resources to his advantage, the British were trouncing the Axis in North Africa. Even after the Afrika Korps arrived, the British won 90% of their engagements when Rommel wasn't in the picture.

The British also knew that the Black Code had been compromised by 1941, making the Axis work in the dark.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

And the quote bits from Havlat deal with exactly that; Lend Lease but not direct military intervention. His conclusion, which was peer reviewed, was that it’d make no difference: the Soviets would still loose.

I think it's highly probable that Nazi Germany would defeat the USSR in this scenario but not certain. There's scope for the Soviets to improve their performance and lots of (additional) ways for the Nazis to screw up.

For the US to remain neutral we need no Pearl Harbour and probably no "accidents" in the North Atlantic. Both non-events lead to butterflies in how strong the British Commonwealth and Empire is.

 

[Borisbogdanov]

Without any American involvement in WW2 Germany wins the European war 9/10.

If the Americans never go to war with Germany but give LL, one has to explain how long LL would have been supplied to the Allies and how much quantities compared to OTL.If its close to OTL than the UK/USSR together manage a stalemate 8/10, a complete victory over Germany is only 1/10, the last 1/10 a German victory. Ofc its pretty unlikely in the first place that the US would supply LL for years without entering the war, in the same quantities as OTL.

And while LL was very important (especially for Britain) no active US involvement means no US Bomber/Fighter armadas destroying German industry/air force, no millions of US soldiers on the ground, Britain is still running out of manpower, (even faster than OTL) and the Soviets get stalemated by a lot of additional German equippment. OTL Stalin contemplated negotiating with Germany in 1943. He will be even more willing to negotiate if he sees that the USSR would have to do pretty much ALL the heavy lifting.

 

[Sarthak]

I seriously don't know why this myth still prevails but, well here we go again...............

It is to be noted that other than coastal defenses the Soviets had absolutely no need for naval assets meaning Germany was wasting money on the front, and was winning in all other sectors in production.

Literally only 10% of the British tank production came from the lend lease tool effort. Even without the lend lease the British were outproducing.

UK+USSR>Germany

Many American industries were leased out to British industries, who were producing by the British, using British designs for the British. America is getting the money, why the hell would they say no?

I want a coherent reason as to how Germany is beating that huge disparity considering they are outdone or equalled by the Soviets alone.

Again

"The soviet war machine was a monstrosity of its own weight, and statistics have shown that only 1/8th of the Soviet war machine depended on the Lend Lease, at least half of which came from Britain" - 'Resource mobilization of World War 2' by Mark Harrison, Department of Economics, University of Warwick.

Meaning 6.25% of their war production came from the USA. That is well....not easily.....but still replaceable.

 

[Comte de Dordogne]

That's easy to do. The french General Staff must be more competent, the Franco-British must enter Germany in 1939 when the Germans are in the East (no Gamelin in command could help) and if the Allies without the Americans do well they manage to defeat Germany in 1940-41.

 

[Sarthak]

That's easy to do. The french General Staff must be more competent, the Franco-British must enter Germany in 1939 when the Germans are in the East (no Gamelin in command could help) and if the Allies without the Americans do well they manage to defeat Germany in 1940-41.

This is another myth as well. The BEF and French Army (rightly) knew that the German spearhead was coming through Belgium. Why waste manpower? We have hindsight, they didn't. There is also the famed 'Westwall' which was said to be equal to the Maginot Line, which would have certainly had a good amount of psychological impact.
If you want to change the war early simply make Gamelin take the Ardennes pictures seriously. Which means no Sedan breakthrough.

 

[Comte de Dordogne]

This is another myth as well. The BEF and French Army (rightly) knew that the German spearhead was coming through Belgium. Why waste manpower? We have hindsight, they didn't. There is also the famed 'Westwall' which was said to be equal to the Maginot Line, which would have certainly had a good amount of psychological impact.
If you want to change the war early simply make Gamelin take the Ardennes pictures seriously. Which means no Sedan breakthrough.

I do not understand what is the point of waiting for the Germans to come back from Poland, organize at their border and invade Belgium for the Allies to counterattack. Why have fun declaring war if it's just to wait?
I think that in order to end the war quickly and without the help of the USA, the Franco-British people must understand that they must attack first.
We could also use a pre-war POD on the evolution of the French army and the Maginot line but that would be outside the world conflict.

 

[Sarthak]

I do not understand what is the point of waiting for the Germans to come back from Poland, organize at their border and invade Belgium for the Allies to counterattack. Why have fun declaring war if it's just to wait?

Their entire doctrine was based defensively to fight on Belgian soil.
Like one British general or admiral said (forgot his name): We don't give a damn about the Belgians
They were going to fight on Belgian soil, that was their entire plan. Their entire offensive capability from only the french border were limited to small raids and offensives like the Saar offensive.
You need to change that mentality and doctrine if you want the British and French to attack. Probably around 1936.

 

[Aber]

If Germany and its industry could have concentrated on one single front from 1941 onwards, it most likely would have vastly changed the outcome of the war in the East.

Which assumes no Western Allies, not no USA; they are not the same thing.