[QUOTE="LaytonsCat"]

Japan wouldn't have been beated, but the Russians would have been able to get to the Germans

LJS9502_basic

The lends lease didn't supply Russia with that much- US supplies were much more needed in China. The Russians had a huge industrial base and could pump out thousands of tanks and planes, not to mention that they considered their own military equipment vastly superior to that of the US.

Saying America entering and fighting didn't matter in the outcome of WWII is as stupid and ignorant as saying said nation singlehandedly won it. There are so many variables that come into play in Seonc World War sans USA scenario that the mind boggles. It's really impossible to tell. The capacity of the allies to mount a second front against Europe would have been severely diminished, and with the Western Front free, Hitler could send a signficant force to the Eastern Front. Japan reigning supreme practically throughout the Pacific also open thousands of possibilities to alternate outcomes.

Verge_6

That is the beauty of speculation. There are so many ways that history would have been profoundly different had not some minor event occured. It is truly mind boggling.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

I agree. I only posed the question because it is an atitude amoungst the people I hang out with that it was mostly America's war, they always ignore theother theatres and focus only on Normandy and France.

However there is still the question of the Japanese Empire.

Calvin079

Wihtout the US, there'd be nobody to defeat Japan

Everyone was being "spanked". But the Japanese were dealt some defeats during Guadalcanal before Milne Bay even began. It was a relatively small confrontation as well, and not that important in the overall strategic planning of both sides.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="harashawn"]The United States played a larger role in the Pacific than in Europe. I think it is fair to say the allies would still have defeated the Germans and Italians, it may have taken longer thought. On the other hand, the Americans did a great deal for the allies in the Pacific theatre, including liberating POW camps; the Japanese would have taken a lot longer to defeat without the aid of the Americans, and there would probably have been a lot more casualties.harashawn

Could the Japanese even have been defeated, though? The Japanese navy could have routed the British royal navy, especially if it had been tied up in Europe. Plus the British industrial base was not significantly larger than that of Japan, so you'd have two pretty evenly-matched oponents.

At best I would say that the allies could have forced a status quo ante bellum upon Japan, but unless the Soviet Union intervened I doubt that Japan could have been defeated outright. let's not forget that during the closing stages of the war Japan wanted peace, but just not unconditional surrender. The plan was to cause so many casualties durring Operation Downfall that the allies would have no stomach to continue the war further into Japan, and would come to the negotiating table.

You're kidding, right? The new Macbook Airs have Sandy Bridge processors, SSDs, and 4 GB of RAM...

Guppy507

The processor runs at only 1.6 GHz. That is really slow, even for a laptop.

The United States played a larger role in the Pacific than in Europe. I think it is fair to say the allies would still have defeated the Germans and Italians, it may have taken longer thought. On the other hand, the Americans did a great deal for the allies in the Pacific theatre, including liberating POW camps; the Japanese would have taken a lot longer to defeat without the aid of the Americans, and there would probably have been a lot more casualties.harashawn

Could the Japanese even have been defeated, though? The Japanese navy could have routed the British royal navy, especially if it had been tied up in Europe. Plus the British industrial base was not significantly larger than that of Japan, so you'd have two pretty evenly-matched oponents.

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

woMANly

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

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="Calvin079"]and one of the bloodiest. That fiend ordered the killing of many, many innocents.

jetpower3

I'd say Stalin in the 1930s was worse. 60 million people were directly murdered by his regime.

I always thought that was a little high. Isn't that like more than a third of the Soviet Union's population in in 1939 (which I believe was 170 million)? The only country or state I can think of that has ever suffered that much in the modern age is Belarus (upwards to 40% of its population killed by the Germans). Not to say he couldn't do it, but did he?

60 million over the course of his entire regime (1922-1952).

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="Calvin079"]and one of the bloodiest. That fiend ordered the killing of many, many innocents.

Calvin079

I'd say Stalin in the 1930s was worse. 60 million people were directly murdered by his regime.

Well played.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"] It would have been paradise. Obviously stalin communism was the way to go. Maybe Pol Pot communism, but I still think stalin communism wins out.

Calvin079

No love for Mao communism :( ? His policies led to perhaps the most wonderfully deadly peacetime era in history.

I'd say Stalin in the 1930s was worse. 60 million people were directly murdered by his regime.