US isolationists had prevented lend/lease and there was no Pearl Harbour

What if the US had stayed isolationist, and had no direct reason to enter WW2, for example if Germany had persuaded Japan not to use military means to achieve their objectives? Could Britain and Russia have held out in 1940-43?

 

That's a very good what-if. A bit difficult to happen under a ruler with a wide vision like FDR though.

But I think that Great Britain might have been defeated in 1942 or 1943 by German U-boats, since without Lend & Lease she would have had a tremendous lack of destroyers and merchant ships. No US four-funnel destroyers given in exchange for military bases, no US Navy escorting British convoys, no US modern destroyers beeing sold to Great Britain and no thousands of 'Liberty' ships to replace the huge losses.

The Soviet Union might have had a very, very harsh time without Lend & Lease and even more, without Great Britain in the war.

 

In large part this what if relates to what if FDR was not in power or had less influence, say in comparison with an isolationist movement which was strongly against US participation in WW2. Also, what if Japan had not forced the issue. In some respects if German foreign policy in keeping the US neutral and perhaps more focussed on anti-communism had been more successful, would Germany have been ultimately successful in Europe. Britain was very dependent in every respect on US support and was bankrupted in 1940. Only US support kept Britain in the war in a meaningful way! Perhaps Russia too may not have survived without US aid and UK involvement to draw away German resources on other fronts (air, sea, North Africa, occupation of Denamrk, Norway, France, etc).

 

Great Britain would have been defeated for sure.

But the Soviet Union? I don't think it's that easy. In order to defeat the USSR Hitler would have had to attack and destroy the Red Army in a single campaign, but to do this he needed a force incredibly large and very well-equipped. That would have been very difficult to achieve quickly even without Great Britain in the war.

 

Are we assuming Japan had no more intention in invading Russia,too? Remember that the Germans stalled at the gates of Moscow without US help. The Germans marched[for the most part]through Russia,I'm sure Russia could have did the same without lend-lease trucks.

 

Russia could have recoccupied conquered territory without US help, but how could it have maintained and supplied its mechanized armies without US trucks etc. The eastern front was not a walkover, it was very hard fought and without petrol, ammunition, mechanical parts, etc., an army must either use animals or feet. Also, the US resourced the fighting on other fronts, which as they opened up helped reduce Germany's capacity to fight on the eastern front. The western allies would also have won the war anyway in late 1945 using the nuclear bomb which Stalin was very well aware of, The key role of the US is unquestionable to allied success in WW2. My point again is if isolationists had prevented FDR from supporting the western allies combined with Japan not attacking the US. What would have happened? Could the nuclear bomb have been developed for example without US resources?

 

Quote"the western allies would have won the war in '45 anyway". WHAT western allies?? Quote "how would they maintain/supply their mechanized forces w/o US trucks?" I would think that if they could dis-assemble whole factories,move them hundreds of miles away out of bomber-range,and set them back up, a couple factories producing trucks would'nt be too hard.Their supply line was no where near as long as german's.The russians had plenty of oil,is'nt that what Hitler wanted but never got? The russians stopped Germany at all 3 cities[Moscow,Stalingrad,Leningrad] w/o US help. Had Hitler not have to station forces in France and used them in Russia instead,it might have took a little longer but the ending would be the same.IMO.With Russia stopping at her border probably.

 

"Had Hitler not have to station forces in France and used them in Russia instead,it might have took a little longer but the ending would be the same.IMO.With Russia stopping at her border probably."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you really think so? Do you really think that without US resourcing directly and indirectly (other fronts etc) that the eastern front would simply have taken a little longer.

I agree that Russia could in the long run have pushed the German army out of Russian territory but that would have left eastern and western Europe intact and still in German hands., and Russia would have been exhausted. Germany would later counter attack. IMO the reality is that Germany was always caught in the gegraphic/military situation that it could win a one front war, but not a two front war. Germany came close to eliminating the western front (so to speak) so it could concentrate on the eastern front. However the stubborn resistance of the UK and the joining of the US in the war from mid 1940 onward secured the western front and ultimate victory over Germany. US direct supplies to Russia did not include many useful weapons this is true, but these supplies released production capacity to focus on war materiel such as tanks, guns, artillery, ammunition, etc. Battles such as Kursk were very close run affairs - and were almost major German victories without western allied intelligence, the war in the air and at sea, and the Mediterranean/ISicely/Italian campaign. This is not to say that the western allies achieved victory without Russia, but that this was a two front war in Europe and my question was what if the US had been kept neutralised by a more successful isolationist campaign on the domestic political front and if Japan had not undertaken a military approach towards resolving its foreign affairs/economic expansion issues and thereby pushed the US into war directly?

 

The US contribution to the Soviet war effort was important, but not at all decisive.

These supplies kept the Soviet industry focused in what they did better: brute, simple, strong weaponry in great quantities, yes. But a couple thousand lorries, even if very helpful in motorising Soviet forces were not decisive for the destruction of the Wehrmacht.

A front in Italy, that meant 20 divisions less to destroy in the eastern front.

A front in the West, it meant 45 divisions less to destroy in the eastern front.

The Germans could have not won not even a one front war against the Soviet Union, unless taking extraordinary measures since 1937…

By 1944 the Germans were fighting in the east with 1/3 of motorised forces; the rest were second grade units which still depended on their feet and on horses. Lorries or no lorries, the Red Army could have smashed this as did with 2/3+ of the German War Machine with, or without help from the US.

Without Lend & Lease, the Soviet population would have gone through an even greater period of worse privations than they actually did and the Wehrmacht might have resisted a couple months more.

 

Shall we just dispence with this "isolation thing" and say Hitler did not declare war on the U.S.?With that,lets start with your Kursk example.Even w/o US intelligence,the German build-up there was "telegraphed".The whole plan was to shorten the front a little.Say the Germans succeeded at their little encirclement,were they ready for the bigger soviet counter-offensive? Remember Hitler called off Kursk when the US invaded Italy and the second front started.Russia had fought Germany to a stand still on one front.Unless Africa is considered a second front. quote: "Germany would later counter-attack" That would be Kursk pt.2. Against Russian' up to date tanks and aircraft?

[ 15. June 2004, 03:55 AM: Message edited by: FramerT ]

 

Just some thoughts:

If you keep the US outta war, Hitler´s situation definitely would have gotten better as I think it was also necessary for the British to get the back up by the USA. I don´t think the US would have stayed out of war in Europe for much longer even if Hitler had not declared war. So maybe one or two years at the most before declaring war to Germany. FDR was going to help Churchill.

On Russian campaign I think Germany lost a whole of tanks and good men in 1941-42, so by 1942 they were not capable of launching attacks in all three army groups but only one and it was chosen to be the the southern sector, and they also had a huge number of Rumanian and Italian soldiers to help them ( otherwise they would not have enough men ). Hitler himself would have definitely wanted to attack in all fronts.But the tide had turned against him. Then the catastrophe of Stalingrad and even bigger losses of good men. In Kursk the new tanks were not fulfilling the expectations, vice versa. Besides in the middle of it the Red Army started its own counterattack so I think even if they got the Kursk surrounded they would have been driven away. the only chance would have been to hold on to the elastic defence and destroy the attacking Red Army forces as much as possible with the Ferdinands and other tanks with 88´s etc.

By 1943 deciding to attack Kursk Hitler lost the final round in east and the war was lost there. However by letting troops move in good order he would have had a lot more men to use in fighting than using the stubborn "not a step back". How about some 300,000-400,000 men from Afrika, the men and vehicles from falaise pocket, the several pockets in Russia. 300,000 from Stalingrad. The list is endless.

 

For a different perspective on comparative efforts among the East and West fronts, you may read this essay. It's not written by a Soviet author, in fact by an American one (D.Glantz) but I like him anyway

It also shows well Allied contribution to the Soviet effort, in terms of LL and otherwise. Conclusions on page 103.

Warning: 114 page long PDF file, long download but very worth the wait.

http://www.strom.clemson.edu/publications/sg-war41-45.pdf

 

Britain and the USSR would still win the war.
The USSR would of course have a lot less trucks and the British less ships.
But the British could make up for this by ending the Artic convoys to the Soviets (which would mean the Soviets have around 1000 less tanks and a good deal of fighters) and buy useing the British Indian Ocean fleet in the Atlantic.
The war would last longer however and there would be a great risk of the Soviets over running Europe.

 

The loss of Lend Lease would have directly affected the USSR production of war material and manpower. On another site or thread it was shown that without lend lease the USSR would be short roughly 1 million troops . Those men would have been shifted into producing what lend lease supplied. So you would have had no Operation Uranus, Kursk counter offensive or Bagration. As stated above without US support Britain is bankrupt and the USSR is barely holding out. So the loss of US lend lease tips the scales in favor of Hitler.

 

Quoting no less a military genius than Marshall Zhukov: "Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic], we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable degree they provided our front transport. The output of special steel, necessary for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of American deliveries." Moreover, Zhukov underscored that "we entered war while still continuing to be a backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany."

Konstantin Simonov's (Soviet journalist/poet/novelist) truthful recounting of these meetings with Georgi Zhukov for his book of interviews with Marshall Zhukov (which took place in 1965 and 1966), are corroborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov hiself, which were recorded as a result of eavesdropping by security organs from 1963 until the Marshall’s demise: "It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and could not have continued the war . . we had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us? We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance." Interestingly this secretly recorded conversation of Marshall Zhukov is in contradiction with Zkukov’s own book where he "toes the party line" and denigrates the Lend-Lease aid. In view of the Soviet control of publishing, I wonder which I would put most faith in?

While Zhukov down-played the contributions of Great Britain and Canada, together they dispatched about a million and a half tons of war supplies and food to the USSR between 1941 and 1945 and among the equipment shipped were thousands of aircraft and tanks and well over 200,000 tons of wheat and flour. The United States provided by far the greater share of the aid and sent about sixteen million tons of stores under the Lend-Lease and earlier agreements. Of the total 17,500,000 tons of material aid dispatched to the USSR, it arrived by the North Atlantic sea route to Murmansk and Archangel and also through Persia (Iran/Iraq). The Pacific route, in spite of the fact that it included a long rail haul across the breadth of Siberia, eventually proved capable of importing as much as the North Atlantic and Persian routes combined. Even the entry of Japan into the war against the United States did not seriously check the flow into Vladivostok since all available Soviet freighters were moved over to the Pacific and a large number of United States vessels were transferred to the Soviet flag. The tonnage dispatches of Western material aid to the USSR from the period from 22 June 1941 to 20 September 1945 were as follows (hope this transfers in a readable form; the Arctic list is mostly aircraft by weight).

Year Totals: Persian Gulf Pacific Atlantic Black Sea Arctic
1941-- 360,778 13,502 193,299 153,977
1942-- 2,453,097 705,259 734,020 949,711 64,107
1943-- 4,794,545 1,606,979 2,388,577 681,043 117,946
1944-- 6,217,622 1,788,864 2,848,181 1,452,775 127,802
1945-- 3,673,819 44,513 2,079,320 726,725 680,723

Among the goods delivered were 427,000 motor vehicles (all types), 13,000 armored fighting vehicles (including 10,000 tanks), 35,000 motorcycles, nearly 19,000 aircraft, 1,900 railway locomotives, 11,000 railway cars (flats and box), ninety freight ships, 105 submarine-chasers and 197 torpedo-boats, and we surely can't forget/ignore the four and a half million tons of foodstuffs sent by the UK.

[Condensed from Albert Seaton's Russo-German War 1941-1945, Appendix A, pages 588-590; "Western Aid for the Soviet Union"]

And corroborated in the book; The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military Efforts, 1941-1945 by Boris V. Sokolov.

I looked at the "chart" transfer, and it didn't do well. The numbers are collapsed and the ports are as well.

Ah well, I did try.

 

Impending bankruptcy would force Britian to fight Germany similar to how Napoleon was fought. At a much slower pace and focusing only on things that Britian could do well. The German naval threat, particularly the submarines would have to be nuetralized first. Then Britian could afford limited operations in the Mediteranian or elsewhere. Brtitian did have its own nuclear weapons program starting in late 1940. Exactly when British atomic bombs could have been built for use is a open question, but my guess is 1946 or 47.

The other side of this coin is when would Germany have been effectively bankrupt? Looting conquests has a very short half life of returns. I've seen some evidence that productivity across Europe was rapidly falling off due to ineffectual nazi economic policys. On a global scale the widespread destruction of Europes banking system from the annexation of Austria, thru the conquest of Poland and the West & the extention of the war to Itay and the Balkans had trashed a major part of the worlds banking & credit balance. Even before the end of 1940 nuetral nations were demanding delivery of German goods in lieu of German bank credits they now suspected were worthless.

In any case I agree with about everyone else here. It would be a longer and bloodier war.

 

So the allied bombing campaign had nothing to do with a slowing down on Germany's war effort, also that having to deal with the allies in North Africa, Italian and French campaigns and diverting resources to cope with that still had nothing to do with it.

One fact that those above who believe that Britain could still pose a serious threat only has to realise that during WW2 Britain imported over 100 million tonnes of American Oil, where in the hell is she supposed to find that if we exclude American Oil, Britain's war industry, machines and weapons would cease operations as they break down due to lack of lubricants.

So we take out such Operations such as Torch, Husky, Anvil, Overlord, Pointblank and the many operations that the US was involved in. Not only that but the many German division that were diverted to face these operations, and the vital diversion of equipment and supplies as well. Then on top of that we then have to take the losses of soldiers.

Britain did not have the military power to launch an invasion of North West Africa then onto Italy and Southern France then Greece & Balkans and let us not forget North-West Europe. Britain would be forced into a no win position, she would have too do the as i believe that Stalin would eventually demand Britain launch an invasion to open up a second European Front whether she was ready or not, at best Britain and her allies may have been able to deploy no more than 20 division against a force of say 100+.

So to add so what of the British Armed Forces

The Royal Navy gets nothing, not one vessel, not one aircraft.
The Royal Air Force gets nothing, no aircraft, no volunteers.
The Imperial Army gets nothing, no guns, no tanks, no artillery, no trucks.

And not only that but all of Britains Empire allies also gets nothing from America

v.R

 

About the Japanese and no Pearl Harbor: What would the japanese have done? The needed oil and natural resources which is why the embarked on the Southern Operation. With out this they would not have been able top continue in China or else where. Would they have simple withdrawn back to Japan and changed ther mind set. I do not think they would have gone so quietly.

We can say that maybe they would have just opted against the attack at Pearl hoping that the US would sit and let them attack indonesia and the other territory to the south. They they might have been able to consolidate most of China. What that would ahve gotten them? An over extended empire prone to rebellion and international disapproval. A Recepie for colapse or success?

 

I would say that Germany likely could have gotten a negotiated peace from Britain after France fell and suffering major setbacks in the Middle East. Of course, this cuts both ways for the British. With no major threat looming in the Far East they can send more troops to the Middle East, but so can Germany. I am looking at that as a historical wash. That is, history is not majorly altered by the change in events.
In the Atlantic, without US help the British would have been hurting. But, to keep the US out of the war the Germans would have had to greatly curtail the area of operation of their U-boats too. Again, this cuts both ways and I'd assume a wash again as an outcome.
As for either bombing out Britain in an air war or directly invading neither is in the cards for Germany. The German's best hope to end the war with Britain is in forcing setbacks in the Atlantic and Middle East to a point Britain opts for peace.
Now, once Russia becomes involved, the picture changes. The British are likely to persue coallition warfare and ally with the Russians. But, without US lend-lease both are going to come up short in land warfare. For the Russians they might hold the Germans about where they historically did by the end of 1942. But, there would be no major offensives possible as the Russians would lack the radios, trucks, and other implements of mechanized warfare the US is providing to make it possible.

As for the Japanese situation: If Japan could have reached some settlement over China with the US the war would likely not have occured. One way this might happen is that the Navy faction in the government retains control instead of the Army as historically occured.
Had something like that happened and Japan backed off expansion in China and maybe even withdrew from some areas, it might have been enough to prolong the peace or avert war entirely. This way they are still getting their resources and have no reason to go to war in the present.

 

I generally agree this line of reasoning.

The only reason Japan needed oil and other raw materials was because of the war in China, but it was their aggression in China that cut them off from their historical sources of these items.

Had Japan managed to throw off the yoke of it's military and view the situation from a normal perspective, they would have seen the irony of the cost of military-driven expansion.

Japan had been expanding it's empire for something like 45 years before it came into irreconcilable conflict with the US over it's policy in China. Neither the US nor Japan held realistic expectations over their policies in China, but in Japan's case, there was immediate and demonstrable negatives associated with her policy of military expansion. Japan should have seen that an accommodation with the US over China was the only way to continue her imperialistic policies in areas where US interests (realistic or not) were not threatened. The Japanese failed utterly at diplomacy and, as a result, literally put themselves in the path of an irresistible force.