would ww2 have ended in a stalemate if america stayed neutral?

[Robert01]

and I mean truly neutral, not just non-belligerent. america was never neutral in ww2, it was non-belligerent for the first two years, but it it was still biased in favor of the allies, it economically aided china and Britain while putting sanction on germany and japan. if america was truly neutral and didn't aid either side and had nothing to do with the war at all, would it have ended in a stalemate? could germany hold off the british empire and ussr? could japan keep its asian conquest's if it avoided attacking hawai and the phillipines and other usa possessions? I don't think the axis was powerful to defeat the british and soviets, but surely it could of forced them into an unwinnable war of attrition were both sides realized that they couldn't defeat the other and agreed to a ceasefire.

 

[Deleted member 656]

The Soviets would have defeated the Germans regardless of what happened on the Western Front.

 

[Robert01]

without american involvement I believe that australia and new zealand would of been cut off from the british empire by the japanese navy, the japanese wouldn't of been able to invade these countries, but they could successfully blockade them, forcing them to either starve or surrender to the japanese.

 

[ldar = cope]

The Soviets would have defeated the Germans regardless of what happened on the Western Front.

Germans lived and still do live rent-free in everyones head

They get off on the thought that they are the most influential race/nation in the world for the past 2000 years

Many don't like them, many love them because they are like that

If a World War is approaching again, and Germany uncucks itself, every other human HAS to build an opinion about them.
And I expect that the western society will turn against them, because Germans are always the villains (rentfree) and Germans will gain Arabs, Indians, Chinese, Japanese and probably Russians as Allies.

IF we assume that jews or an elite dont control everything or nothing at all

 

[xit]

America was borderline irrelevant in the european theatre. Russians would have won without help

 

[Deleted member 3043]

America was borderline irrelevant in the european theatre. Russians would have won without help

they had the worst toll, so it's not as easy to say, but everything began at the battle of stalingrad, and nobody can beat Russia in his own atmosphere/territory

 

[xit]

they had the worst toll, so it's not as easy to say, but everything began at the battle of stalingrad, and nobody can beat Russia in his own atmosphere/territory

germany may have had a chance with better weather invading france enabling them to invade russia in 1940. there is a private recording of hitler discussing this in 1943. He knew at that point he was fucked because the soviets had built over 30,000 tanks

 

[DarknLost]

@disillusioned 2

 

[UnderCovrN0rmie]

no lol, germany was fucked from the start because they didn't have enough oil

might've lasted a bit longer without the USA's help, but it still would've ended in the allies winning

 

[xit]

no lol, germany was fucked from the start because they didn't have enough oil

might've lasted a bit longer without the USA's help, but it still would've ended in the allies winning

They would have had enough oil if they invaded russia in the summer of 1940 because it could have been a swift victory and they would be taking over soviet refineries on the way

 

[UnderCovrN0rmie]

They would have had enough oil if they invaded russia in the summer of 1940 because it could have been a swift victory and they would be taking over soviet refineries on the way

funny idea and the world would probably be a slightly better place if that happened, but i seriously doubt they'd be able to take over enough before winter rolled around and they all inevitably froze to death

 

[BigBiceps]

The Soviets would have defeated the Germans regardless of what happened on the Western Front.

Absolutely not. Without US help, Britain would have fell and US help was massive to soviet union too. Soviet Union came very close to losing even with massive help from US, they'd not standed a chance if US resources wouldn't have flooded the allies.

 

[xit]

funny idea and the world would probably be a slightly better place if that happened, but i seriously doubt they'd be able to take over enough before winter rolled around and they all inevitably froze to death

from 1940-41 the red army made enormous progress

At the beginning of operation barbarossa they didnt even have enough rifles for every troop but once germany was to stalingrad production was ramped up and they were pumping out tanks like they were toys

Just imagine if they reached stalingrad over a year sooner. I feel it would be similar to the invasion of france

 

[UnderCovrN0rmie]

from 1940-41 the red army made enormous progress

At the beginning of operation barbarossa they didnt even have enough rifles for every troop but once germany was to stalingrad production was ramped up and they were pumping out tanks like they were toys

Just imagine if they reached stalingrad over a year sooner. I feel it would be similar to the invasion of france

idk man, they could've just retreated even further back, making their supply lines shorter

 

[BigBiceps]

America was borderline irrelevant in the european theatre. Russians would have won without help

Wrong. Without US, Europe would be german. I don't think you quite understand how much resources US gave to allies before even joining the battles. Soviets only got 17.5 million tons of lend-lease from US.

 

[xit]

Absolutely not. Without US help, Britain would have fell and US help was massive to soviet union too. Soviet Union came very close to losing even with massive help from US, they'd not standed a chance if US resources wouldn't have flooded the allies.

i disagree. how the fuck was the soviet union close to losing? It would have been a two front war either way and germany would have caved, let alone from the endless russian hordes. Germany would have ran out of men and resources if they were able to hold off the soviets anyway.

 

[Deleted member 1551]

The Soviets would have defeated the Germans regardless of what happened on the Western Front.

Fucking cope. If half of our troops wouldn't have been on the Western front the soviets would've been annihilated.

 

[Robert01]

@disillusioned 2

the fuck? because I posted about ww2?

 

[BigBiceps]

i disagree. how the fuck was the soviet union close to losing? It would have been a two front war either way and germany would have caved, let alone from the endless russian hordes. Germany would have ran out of men and resources if they were able to hold off the soviets anyway.

"The Soviet Union nearly lost the war in 1941 and suffered from poor planning, according to Marshal Georgy Zhukov in the frank television interview that has been banned since it was recorded in 1966"

Germany literally destroyed whole soviet airforce in the first couple months of operation barbarossa. Without allied help, soviets hadn't stood a chance.

 

[xit]

idk man, they could've just retreated even further back, making their supply lines shorter

true, but the french could have done the same yet were steamrolled due to the surprise nature of the offensive. Russia had time to prepare, which is signifigant. Maybe russia could have been steamrolled past moscow if they were caught off gaurd in the same way

 

[Overjetcel299]

The us would've stayed neutral but the dumb fucks japanese ppl bombed pearl harbour

 

[UnderCovrN0rmie]

true, but the french could have done the same yet were steamrolled due to the surprise nature of the offensive. Russia had time to prepare, which is signifigant. Maybe russia could have been steamrolled past moscow if they were caught off gaurd in the same way

maybe, i think it's pretty unfair to compare the ussr to france though, it was a lot bigger in terms of... well size as well as population

most of war is about how well supplied you are though

 

[BigBiceps]

The us would've stayed neutral but the dumb fucks japanese ppl bombed pearl harbour

They were not neutral anyways. They funded the allies with millions of tons of lend-lease, food and funds. Japanese plan was to destroy whole US pacific fleet that was stationed at Pearl Harbor, but part of the navy was in sea on training, so it only worked partially.

 

[Robert01]

The us would've stayed neutral but the dumb fucks japanese ppl bombed pearl harbour

Japan was facing server economic sanctions by the allies and was dangerously low on oil. japans had a choice: either end its occupation of china and surrender its colonies, or seize its vital resources from the allies by force and hope the US doesn't engage in a long drawn out war, japan chose the latter option.

 

[xit]

"The Soviet Union nearly lost the war in 1941 and suffered from poor planning, according to Marshal Georgy Zhukov in the frank television interview that has been banned since it was recorded in 1966"

Germany literally destroyed whole soviet airforce in the first couple months of operation barbarossa. Without allied help, soviets hadn't stood a chance.

lol, germany didnt even make it half way into the soviet union before getting stuck. The soviet union had 30,000 fucking tanks by 1943. Hitler admitted victory wasnt possible in 43 because of the size of the red army.

The only way germany would have won was getting barbarossa started a year earlier before the red army had enough time to prepare

 

[Deleted member 2095]

Incel trait no. 2947183382719: participating in this thread




.



.


.



.


.

Hol up

 

[Overjetcel299]

Clearly im low iq so im not gonna comment anymore

 

[xit]

Japan was facing server economic sanctions by the allies and was dangerously low on oil. japans had a choice: either end its occupation of china and surrender its colonies, or seize its vital resources from the allies by force and hope the US doesn't engage in a long drawn out war, japan chose the latter option.

This. Also the us wanted and knew pearl harbour was going to happen in advance to use it as an excuse to get involved in the war

 

[BigBiceps]

true, but the french could have done the same yet were steamrolled due to the surprise nature of the offensive. Russia had time to prepare, which is signifigant. Maybe russia could have been steamrolled past moscow if they were caught off gaurd in the same way

French had nowhere to retreat to. They were totally fucking surrounded and germans had taken the capital. Soviets were surprised too, since they were on attacking positions in Poland, but hitler acted first and cut the soviet lines like butter. Ussr is far bigger country and the allied lend lease started rolling in at Murmansk and other ports and troops could be freed from Japanese fronts when they attacked Pearl Harbor, since they knew Japanese wouldn't attack USSR now. Soviets had massive resources on their own too, while Germans ran out of oil by end of the war.

 

[Deleted member 656]

Absolutely not. Without US help, Britain would have fell and US help was massive to soviet union too. Soviet Union came very close to losing even with massive help from US, they'd not standed a chance if US resources wouldn't have flooded the allies.

OP Sea Lion would never have worked. Britian wouldn't have fell, and the Germans would never realistically have been able to hold Russia even if they'd taken it.

 

[BigBiceps]

OP Sea Lion would never have worked. Britian wouldn't have fell, and the Germans would never realistically have been able to hold Russia even if they'd taken it.

Britain was already cracking hard and was at breaking point in 1941 but got saved by germans moving lots of the forces to eastern fronts. German plan was not to take whole russia, but establish Arkangelsk-Astrakhan line where troops would stop.
Been reading history hard, had finals yesterday

 

[Deleted member 656]

Britain was already cracking hard and was at breaking point in 1941 but got saved by germans moving lots of the forces to eastern fronts.

No chance they'd have surrendered.

 

[BigBiceps]

No chance they'd have surrendered.

Of course they'd have surrendered when they would've ran out of airforce and germany could freely bomb their navy and move troops to the british islands.

 

[xit]

Britain was already cracking hard and was at breaking point in 1941 but got saved by germans moving lots of the forces to eastern fronts. German plan was not to take whole russia, but establish Arkangelsk-Astrakhan line where troops would stop.
Been reading history hard, had finals yesterday

nothing you said is a counter argument. Britain never would have been taken

Of course they'd have surrendered when they would've ran out of airforce and germany could freely bomb their navy and move troops to the british islands.

this could never happen unless there was no eastern front either

 

[Ritalincel]

 

[Hector]

without american involvement I believe that australia and new zealand would of been cut off from the british empire by the japanese navy, the japanese wouldn't of been able to invade these countries, but they could successfully blockade them, forcing them to either starve or surrender to the japanese.

How the fuck are Australia going to starve? It is a fucking continent it produces his own food.

 

[currymax]

Eastern front germans live rent free in russia's head

If the US hadn't entered the war, Stalin's head would be on a spike

 

[Roping Subhuman]

If Germans had taken Moscow in 1941 they would've won tbh.

 

[Deleted member 616]

The Soviets would have defeated the Germans regardless of what happened on the Western Front.

Cope

In total, the U.S. deliveries to the USSR through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, about 1,386[58] of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans);[59]11,400 aircraft (4,719 of which were Bell P-39 Airacobras)[60] and 1.75 million tons of food.[61]

 

[Deleted member 275]

Cope
View attachment 121364

Your own image disproves your argument. The war in the east was lost for Germany in 1943 after a last ditch effort to win in the summer of that year. It was already looking very bleak for Germany in 1942. The war in the east was supposed to be won in the first year, when they didn't win even after 2 years it was over and all germany could do is LDAR tbh.

The sovjets only received 16.1% of those total supplies by the start of 1943. That doesn't make much of a difference when you consider the sovjets were already winning.

 

[Deleted member 616]

The war in the east was lost for Germany in 1943 after a last ditch effort to win in the summer of that year. It was already looking very bleak for Germany in 1942. The war in the east was supposed to be won in the first year, when they didn't win even after 2 years it was over and all germany could do is LDAR tbh.

The aid in 1942 was already considerable and that was triggered by America's participation in the war, which was Hitler had always been trying to avoid (Japan wasn't collaborating that well with Germany anyway). Besides, the situation in 1942 was definitely not clear for both sides given the fact that USSR lost a large amount of territory in the south (its most important industry was already lost anyway in 1941). In Stalingrad there was a time where it looked very bleak for the Russians. And don't forget that the Red Army almost always had more casualties than Wehrmacht regardless of victory or defeat.

WW2 was a total war which means that your winning potential lies not only in your techniques and strategies but also in your industrial capacity. And America production mogged all other world powers (probably even USSR + Germany combined)

 

[rockndogs]

Probably germany would have lasted a bit more. Or they would win but the reich would fall regardless some years later. WHO KNOWS CUNT

 

[Deleted member 275]

The aid in 1942 was already considerable and that was triggered by America's participation in the war, which was Hitler had always been trying to avoid (Japan wasn't collaborating that well with Germany anyway). Besides, the situation in 1942 was definitely not clear for both sides given the fact that USSR lost a large amount of territory in the south (its most important industry was already lost anyway in 1941). In Stalingrad there was a time where it looked very bleak for the Russians. And don't forget that the Red Army almost always had more casualties than Wehrmacht regardless of victory or defeat.

Yeah true, the war wasn't over yet in mid 1942, but by the time the Germans lost Stalingrad at the end of 1942 the war in the east was basically over tbh. 1943 was nothing but a last-ditch effort.

WW2 was a total war which means that your winning potential lies not only in your techniques and strategies but also in your industrial capacity. And America production mogged all other world powers (probably even USSR + Germany combined)

And the willingness to win. Justlol @ western powers like France surrendering so easily. Mogged by Nazi's in willpower and tactics so hard.

 

[Deleted member 656]

Your own image disproves your argument. The war in the east was lost for Germany in 1943 after a last ditch effort to win in the summer of that year. It was already looking very bleak for Germany in 1942. The war in the east was supposed to be won in the first year, when they didn't win even after 2 years it was over and all germany could do is LDAR tbh.

The sovjets only received 16.1% of those total supplies by the start of 1943. That doesn't make much of a difference when you consider the sovjets were already winning.

Even the German high command acknowledged that the Eastern Front was lost in 1941, when they failed to reach Moscow before the winter set in.

 

[currymax]

Even the German high command acknowledged that the Eastern Front was lost in 1941, when they failed to reach Moscow before the winter set in.

see, what you borscht-copers are failing to grasp is, Russia's push back would have ultimately been unsuccessful, as Germany would have been able to redirect resources

 

[Zygos4Life]

Ww2 is gay
Aye aye captain