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.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

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.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

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.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

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/publica...g-war41-45.pdf

__________________