[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="woMANly"]

I don't think the soviets would have ever been able to beat the Germans. The soviets were retreating and were just playing a war of attrition (scorched earth policy comes ot mind) on the Germans. That doesn't mean they were really beating the Germans. All the Germans had to do was wait it out until the weather started to get warmer.

Without the US, the Japanese would have more military resource possibly to start harassing Russia. So Germany would have had an easier time taking over Europe. I don't know, I say WW2 would have a grim destiny had the US not enter the war

jun_aka_pekto

But the Russians did eventually beat the Germans- Stalingrad 1942 ended in a million axis casualties. It was the tactics of the Red Army (the encirclement of the entire German 6th army) that sealed the deal, not old man winter.

EDIT: you raise an interesting point, though. If the Japanese had gone for the soft underbelly of the Soviet Unionthen Germany's job would have been made much easier

This is because the Japanese devoted most of their funding and raw materials to build warships. Had the focus been on armor, they would have developed some competent tanks. In the pacific, tanks were inconsequential. Japanese wartime designs actually became quite advanced by 1943 (more or less equal to that of the US) but most of these designs were never actually built and those that were were contructed in very minute numbers in 1945 (by which thime they were already outclassed). American strategic bombing just completely eliminated the Japanese capacity to produce tanks.

Look up theType 3 Chi-Nu (designed 1943), the type 3 Ho-Ni lll tank destroyer,and the Type 4 Chi-to (designed in 1942) for a glimpse of what Japanese tanks could have been likeif they had been given priority. Even if they were not superior to Soviet tanks, they could still probably have held their own.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]

I don't know why people always say "Russia would have dealt with it". Russian soldiers were sent into battles wave after wave without weapons... if you stopped or turned around your commanding officer would execute you.

That said the US didn't "win" the war, but greatly helped the allied offensive in western Europe which stretched Germany's forces, and when German forces were winning they were often overstretching their supply lines even more because Hitler was arrogant and told them to keep going.

LJS9502_basic

That is a myth. You probably got that from enemy at the gates, which is of course not an accurate depiction of the Red Army. Yes, durring 1942 men were conscripted en masse and in some cases not issued a rifle, but these were very isolated incedents within a very small period of the war. Once the Soviet steamroller got going, everyone had weapons, I mean, c'mon.

Just as a note I havn't really taken sides with either answer (to the original question) as some good points have been raised. I'm just pointing out historical facts.

The use of American weapons was about as widespread as the lack of any (that is, it didn't happen often).

I don't know why people always say "Russia would have dealt with it". Russian soldiers were sent into battles wave after wave without weapons... if you stopped or turned around your commanding officer would execute you.

That said the US didn't "win" the war, but greatly helped the allied offensive in western Europe which stretched Germany's forces, and when German forces were winning they were often overstretching their supply lines even more because Hitler was arrogant and told them to keep going.

DigitalExile

That is a myth. You probably got that from enemy at the gates, which is of course not an accurate depiction of the Red Army. Yes, durring 1942 men were conscripted en masse and in some cases not issued a rifle, but these were very isolated incedents within a very small period of the war. Once the Soviet steamroller got going, everyone had weapons, I mean, c'mon.

Just as a note I havn't really taken sides with either answer (to the original question) as some good points have been raised. I'm just pointing out historical facts.

[QUOTE="Bloodseeker23"]Are we talking about if the US didn't help at all? no giving supplies and all that? Then I think it'll be very hard for the Allies to defeat the *Evil* Axis. It will result in much greater casualty from the Allies, and how about Japan? the Brits can't fight 2 wars at the same time. U.S. is pivotal for winning the war, but they didn't do all the work like how the movies show it. So ..I'm 50-50 if the Allies can beat the Germans/Japanese without help from U.S.surrealnumber5

What are you talking about? I said that US aid would still be given, in the same way that it was when the US was still nuetral... I am only interested in whether actual US military action was necesary in order to win.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

The only reason they won at El Alemain was because of the American supplies and massive amounts of Sherman tanks. The British didn't win without the Americans aid.

In fact, it's almost doubtful they would have won the Battle of Britian without supplies from the US.

Wasdie

Aid, yes, but I am talking about actual military intervention.

There is a difference between active wartime aid and when we were neutral. If the US never had declared war, they would never have given the amount of aid they did. You're really narrowing the scope of the war. The US was just giving supplies away after 1941, not selling them like before.

Let's just say that the outcome of WWII would have been much worse if the US never got involved and stayed isolated. The Russians and the British both required tons of aid from the US to win. The US also mounted key invasions of North Africa, Italy, France, and handled the entire Pacific theater pretty much by themselves.

Everybody overestimates Russia. Russia was a beast, but it was because Hitler constantly overstretched his forces between two fronts on Russia, North Africa, and Italy. Kursk was lost because Hitler re-routed the reinforcements to Italy. Stalingrad was llost for similar reasons. Without those other fronts, Russia would never have won. Their production facilities would have been smashed by overwhelming airforce numbers.

Russia never required aid from the US to win. As I have already said, they thought that their military equipment was far superior to that of the US (and not without reason). And Germany never saw the potential for strateguc bombing until it was too late, otherwise the Luftwaffe would have been bombing the **** out of Moscow, Leningrad, and the factories that had ben moved east of the Urals. Kursk was lost because Hitler was a terrible strategist, the same reason that Stalingrad ended in disaster and that the Germans never captured Moscow. If it had not been for Hitler's blunders, would the invasion of the Soviets have gone more smoothly? Possiby, but the war would still have been lost.

As for the US handling the pacific by themselves, I would just like to point out the massive contribution made by the Chinese in diverting Japanese resources, and the British effort in Burma, and the Australian help in New Guinea.

lol

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Taking the middle east oil supplies. The only reason why the germans split their army in two during the invasion of Russia was because they need russian oil fields. The Brits and Americans stopped Rommel in North Africa from reaching the middle east.

We are also completely forgetting that the Japanese could have launched an invasion of the USSR if they weren't caught up with the US.

Wasdie

But the British had already stopped Rommel at El Alemain months before American troops landed in Algeria. The North African campaign would have lasted much longer, but the British still would have won, unless Germany postponed its invasion of Russia and focussed solely on that theatre. The question of the Japanese invasion of the Soviet far east is a intruiging one, and one that has been brought up several times already.

The only reason they won at El Alemain was because of the American supplies and massive amounts of Sherman tanks. The British didn't win without the Americans aid.

In fact, it's almost doubtful they would have won the Battle of Britian without supplies from the US.

Aid, yes, but I am talking about actual military intervention.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I would have loved to see them win it when the Germans had an unlimited fuel supply and were not getting food and other supplies from the US.

Wasdie

How would the Germans have an unlited fuel supply? Can you explian?

Taking the middle east oil supplies. The only reason why the germans split their army in two during the invasion of Russia was because they need russian oil fields. The Brits and Americans stopped Rommel in North Africa from reaching the middle east.

We are also completely forgetting that the Japanese could have launched an invasion of the USSR if they weren't caught up with the US.

But the British had already stopped Rommel at El Alemain months before American troops landed in Algeria. The North African campaign would have lasted much longer, but the British still would have won, unless Germany postponed its invasion of Russia and focussed solely on that theatre. The question of the Japanese invasion of the Soviet far east is a intruiging one, and one that has been brought up several times already.

[QUOTE="Kcube"]

Russia would have ended it.

Wasdie

I would have loved to see them win it when the Germans had an unlimited fuel supply and were not getting food and other supplies from the US.

How would the Germans have an unlited fuel supply? Can you explian?

The ipad