Could the Allies have won WWII in Europe if the US had stayed truly neutral?

[DrDeth]

@The_Second_Stone

Japan had been oil embargoed by the US, which was an exporter. Japan had no oil at home, yet an extensive empire. The Philippines, a US possession at the time, were in the way of south east Asian supplies of oil. Japan’s top priority was having its “own” oil resources without a major US naval base between Japan and the supply, meaning the Philippines. Unless the Japanese abandoned their goal, which was entirely contrary to their self-sufficiency ideology, war the with the US was certain. When was not.

Not if the Japanese were sure the USA would remain neutral. In fact they had strong evidence to the contrary, which is one of the reasons why they attacked the USA. If they had been sure of American Neutrality, they would have just walked into the Dutch East Indies and had all the oil they needed. French-Indochina rolled over anyway. Next would have been Siam, India, and Australia. Meanwhile, a strong, aggressive and not engaged (by the Allies)Japanese army in China would be a threat to the USSR.

[DrDeth]

@Quartz

But Britain had plenty of access to fuel. If we ran short of oil, we had plenty of coal from which to make it via the Fischer-Tropsch process, just as the Germans did. And, of course, one of the largest onshore oilfields in Europe is in the U.K. Further, given no war in the Far East, we can import from there.

For Germany to lose, all Russia needed to do was fight Germany to a standstill. Britain gradually gains command of the air after the Battle of Britain, keeps supplying the resistance movements to keep the Germans from deploying too many troops in the East, then develops the atomic bomb, and that ends matters very quickly…

1. Plenty of coal yes, the heavy manufacturing capacity, no. Not even Germany could make enough oil.

2. Not available in that era. Also, easily subject to aircraft raids.

3. How are we assuming this? The Japanese would have just gone on with the Greater-East Asians Co-prosperity Sphere, and this time without any real resistance.

4. Not without food and raw materials, which would not have gotten through due to the U-boots.

5. Not enough money to do this. Nor the technical skill.

[DrDeth]

@Little_Nemo

. Stalin prefered to concentrate on weapons manufacturing and let us provide logistic support (he probably didn’t want to let us control his supply of weapons). But if it had been necessary, the Soviets could have converted some of their industrial capacity to building trucks…

Yes, and then, with less tanks and artillery, they would have lost.

[aceplace57]

Churchill certainly thought the US contributions were necessary. He was in regular contact with Roosevelt before the US committed. IIRC Churchill made his first White House visit before the US declared war. Churchill was upset that the invasion of France was delayed. The US went into Africa first and then Italy.

[Quartz]

@DrDeth

5. Not enough money to do this. Nor the technical skill.

I assume you’re taking about the atomic bomb. We had plenty of skill and resources. After all, we had those scientists who escaped Europe - they wouldn’t have gone on to America. I doubt that we’d have had the same large-scale programme: that isn’t the British way, but we’d have done it nonetheless. The issue of delivery of the bomb was raised earlier: we had jet aircraft, and in a longer war they would have seen much more rapid development.

[Gyrate]

@DrDeth

Yes, and then, with less tanks and artillery, they would have lost.

My (possibly imperfectly remembered) understanding is that one of the biggest boosts that the US provided before its entry into WW II was the provision of trucks, jeeps, etc that allowed the Soviets and British to focus their manufacturing capacity on tanks, planes, and so forth. What the US provided, the other Allies didn’t have to make themselves and could better use their own resources.

[Sailboat]

@aceplace57

Churchill was upset that the invasion of France was delayed. The US went into Africa first and then Italy.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to. The British government went to considerable, careful effort to delay a cross-channel invasion in 1942 and 1943 because Churchill thought (probably rightly) that the Americans were not ready and would suffer a large-scale defeat that would set back the cause. The British had to be careful not to offend the Americans while trying to put off the invasion, and most of what I’ve read seems to imply that the North African invasion and maybe even Italy were seen as welcome diversions to distract the Americans from invading France.

[Little_Nemo]

Yes, and then, with less tanks and artillery, they would have lost.

No, and then the Soviets would still have had a major advantage in quality and quantity over the Germans. Which they would have used to win.

[Little_Nemo]

Churchill was upset that the invasion of France was delayed. The US went into Africa first and then Italy.

You’ve got this completely backwards. The United States was pushing very hard for an early cross-channel invasion. It was Churchill who did everything he could to delay it and send troops to Africa and Italy instead.

[Chefguy]

@Little_Nemo

You’ve got this completely backwards. The United States was pushing very hard for an early cross-channel invasion. It was Churchill who did everything he could to delay it and send troops to Africa and Italy instead.

This is correct. Churchill was convinced that the way to Germany was through the “soft underbelly” of Europe and through the less ferocious Italian army. Italy turned out to be a hill-to-hill slog that took longer than anybody expected.

[ralph124c]

There is NO way that the UK could have made atomic bombs on its own. The building of the gaseous diffusion plant (to enrich the uranium) took 2 years and cost close to a billion $. Moreover, the UK had no source of uranium, except for small amounts from S. Africa.
As for petroleum, not only the RAF, but the RN was dependent upon US-supplied bunker oil.
As for the Russians, without US (and British) help, they would have had to face the German army with fewer esources, so the war would have dragged on into 1947 or 1948.
Russia was too big to be toatlly defeated, but beating the Germans without American help, would have taken a long time.

[Baron_Greenback]

@ralph124c

Moreover, the UK had no source of uranium, except for small amounts from S. Africa.

Also Australia, Canada and the Belgian Congo (which was under the control of the allied Belgian government-in-exile). It would have been a longer and harder process for the UK to develop the bomb, probably in Canada or Australia, but we’d still have got there before the Germans. We might have had to sell off a Princess or two to afford it, mind…

[Teacake]

I’m just going to go on ahead and mention theTizard Mission again. Does no-one have any thoughts on the influence or lack thereof that this wholesale gift of British research and innovation had on the USA’s decision to become involved, or their progress towards, among other things, the bomb?

[kidchameleon]

@Sailboat

Nitpick: The contribution of resistance movements to defeating Germany, or even to occupying German attention, has been vastly overblown. In Keegan’s The Second World War and in Intelligence in War: Knowledge of the Enemy from Napoleon to Al-QaedaWar he discusses resistance movements in great detail, and concludes they provided very little material help.

However Keegan totally overlooks Colonel Hogan’s contributions, both in sabotage and intelligence gathering.

[Little_Nemo]

This is correct. Churchill was convinced that the way to Germany was through the “soft underbelly” of Europe and through the less ferocious Italian army. Italy turned out to be a hill-to-hill slog that took longer than anybody expected.

While others were divided over whether we should have a “Germany first” strategy or a “Japan first” strategy, Churchill was able to push through his “Italy first” strategy.

[Baron_Greenback]

@Little_Nemo

While others were divided over whether we should have a “Germany first” strategy or a “Japan first” strategy, Churchill was able to push through his “Italy first” strategy.

The “Italy first” strategy could be interpreted as a combination of “we’re not yet ready for an Overlord-sized operation in Northern France but we need to keep the pressure on in the mean time” which in retrospect was correct (I think), and a crazed Churchillian “we can sweep into Southern Germany and also occupy the Balkans!” gambit. I’m just amazed that everything eventually worked out as well as it did.

[Chefguy]

@Little_Nemo

While others were divided over whether we should have a “Germany first” strategy or a “Japan first” strategy, Churchill was able to push through his “Italy first” strategy.

It was pretty ballsey, considering who he was putting his troops up against. While Montgomery was a great tactician, he was slow to act in many cases, and not in Rommel’s class as a warrior. Rommel’s only problem was lack of fuel support from Il Duce, which eventually cost him the campaign.

It seems like Montgomery never really understood the German blizkrieg mentality (my opinion, no cite) and was operating on WWI military tactics to win the day. Rommel again and again drove lightning fast and devastating strikes into allied lines that sent them fleeing across the desert in disarray. Monty never seemed to learn the lesson.

[aceplace57]

It’s been a few years since I saw the History Channel documentaries. I may have gotten my facts twisted around. I do recall there was a lot of debate over where to start the campaigns. Delaying the French invasion was a smart tactic. It took awhile to get enough troops and supplies in position.

@Sailboat

I’m not sure what you’re referring to. The British government went to considerable, careful effort to delay a cross-channel invasion in 1942 and 1943 because Churchill thought (probably rightly) that the Americans were not ready and would suffer a large-scale defeat that would set back the cause. The British had to be careful not to offend the Americans while trying to put off the invasion, and most of what I’ve read seems to imply that the North African invasion and maybe even Italy were seen as welcome diversions to distract the Americans from invading France.

[Jackmannii]

I think Britain and Russia with spotty help from other nations/refugee fighters could have defeated the Axis.

It would have taken considerably longer. And at the end of it, most of Europe would have been Communist. Possibly Britain as well.

[DrDeth]

@Quartz

I assume you’re taking about the atomic bomb. We had plenty of skill and resources. After all, we had those scientists who escaped Europe - they wouldn’t have gone on to America. I doubt that we’d have had the same large-scale programme: that isn’t the British way, but we’d have done it nonetheless. The issue of delivery of the bomb was raised earlier: we had jet aircraft, and in a longer war they would have seen much more rapid development.

Maybe the technical know-how, but not the funds. GB was dead broke. Nor any Uranium.

The jets in service in the RAF could not come even close to taking off with a Fat-Man bomb. Gloster Meteor had a bomb load of 500# on a good day. Fat Man weighed 20 times that. The Vickers Valiant became operational in 1955. The Uk developed it’s first atomic weapon in 1952.

Read about GB nuke program here:

Tube Alloys

I admit the British were open and helpful with their technical findings, and those likely shaved some time off the Manhattan Project.