It depends upon what you mean by “if Pearl Harbor never happened”. The United States was, diplomatically, doing everything it could to push Japan into either giving up on its conquests or declaring war upon the United States (embargoes on oil and other necessary materials the Japanese needed for its current army maintenance, let alone further expansion).
Even if Japan had asquiesced, Germany was still pushing unrestricted submarine warfare in the North Atlantic, and the Lend-Lease treaty was pulling the United States more and more into the war.
For the United States not to have gotten involved at all, it would have to have been more than Pearl Harbor not happening; it would involve a true isolationist (which neither Wilkie nor FDR were) getting elected in 1940.
If that had happened- hard to say. The Soviets were doing a very good job of kicking Nazi butt prior to our opening up alternative fronts in Italy and northern France, but their chances of success were helped by American aid (the Murmansk convoy) and Britain being able to hold on to North Africa (again, helped by the Lend-Lease Treaty).
One could postulate that, without American aid, Britain would have been mostly sidelined by 1942, and that the Soviets would have been eventually beaten down. Or, one could postulate that the British and Soviets would have still managed to win, but it would have taken eight or ten years rather than six.
You ask a lot in your OP, but I’m a bit of a WWII history buff and I’d have to say that no, the US did not “save” Europe from Hitler, at least not in the sense that most of us think we did.
IMHO, what we did in Europe in the 1940’s was:
Provide a second front threat to Hitler that prevented him from concentrating all of his might in the East against Stalin.
Bring about a faster end to the Third Reich.
By the time we enter the war in earnest on June 6th with Normandy, the German army had already had it’s back broken in the east. The threat of the Germans was already waning and they were being forced into a defensive position. Now, if Hitler had only England to worry about, who in her own right was not able to mount an invasion (because of manpower and more importantly, war material), he could have thrown everything he had at Stalin and probably maintained the front somewhere in the former eastern block states and ultimately forced a truce with Stalin over the new borders.
Because he had to worry about the US/English/Canadian forces in the West, he had to keep armies there, which gave the Russians an easier time breaking back through German lines and pushing towards Berlin.
In a sense, I think your last statement there is the most true. Stalin had plans of his own for Europe, and the US presence there at the end of the war probably played no small role in keeping parts/all of western Europe from becoming another Russian republic.
In the long run, Germany could possibly have held onto most of Europe, and if it had sued for peace with the Soviets it could possibly have invaded and conquered Britain, thus requiring the US to ‘save Europe’.
However, these are pretty small possibilities really. As others have said, what the US really did (and what Europe is grateful for) was accelerate the German defeat, which might have taken years or even decades more.
Suppose that the US had not enterred to war. How long would the Germany/Japan alliance have lasted, and would they at some point turned against each other? Would they have found conflict somewhere in the border between Europe and Asia-- eg, India?
Probably. I can’t imagine Hitler simultaneously being a strong proponent of the “ubermensch” and tolerating the existence of a Japanese empire indefinitely.
That’s what I was thinking at first, but then it seemed plausible that they would both decide it was to their mutual advantage to let the other opperate freely in a well defined area-- ie, Europe vs Asia. I should add that I meant in my first post to also assume that neither Germany nor Japan was defeated by Europe + the USSR.
How far would the Soviets have pushed? Would they have stopped when they conquered Germany? If they didn’t and pushed all the way to the Atlantic would they reinstated the countries that were there pre-war or would they have held onto it for a USSR that spans from ocean to ocean?
Absent US active participation in WWII a Nazi-Soviet separate peace seems likely. (Could’ve happened in our timeline as well, had the Nazis a more reasonable grasp of the situation on the ground). The border would depend on when the two sides saw reason. (with no US lend lease the border will be much further east; with no UK lend lease either much, much further east). While a near to mid-term invasion of Britain is just not going to happen (successfully at least), a less distracted reich could conceivably wreak enough Mediterranean havoc to force Britain to the negotiating table (maybe Britain keeps the med (less some minor concessions to Italy), nominal independence for a puppet fascist France, etc).
Germany and Japan’s alliance has only one purpose - keep the US out of the war. Other than that there is very little commonality between the two (okay, same enemies pretty much down the line, but they were able to tag team British policy even before a formal alliance, and Japan was under no foreseeable circumstances going to tangle with the Soviet Union after the pasting they took in '39 and '40. As long as the Nazi’s don’t mess with the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere and the Japanese don’t interfere anywhere west of the Urals or India, all will be copacetic.
Germany would have no problem coexisting with the British Empire or the US. They would merely play up the Anglo Saxon and Teutonic elements of the US as they played up the non Anglo Saxon and Teutonic elements during the war. As for Japan and the US not going to war . . . very unlikely, as both have been essentially planning primarily for war with the other for a very long time. Any acquisition, through military means, of the resources of southeast Asia and the East Indies will be at the mercy of American units in the Philippines while simultaneously offending American public opinion.
Well, I think the question really depends on what aid the US would have continued to provide. Say that as part of the US staying out of it we agreed to also stop providing aid in the form of war materials to the Soviets and the UK. In fact, only if we DID stop such shipments do I think its plausable we would have stayed out of the war even without an attack by Japan on the US…after all we had been covertly fighting the Germans for a year or so in the North Atlantic because of those shipments, if memory serves, and this would have eventually lead to our getting fully involved IMO.
However, lets say Japan decides not to attack the US but comes up with some comprimise we could accept (not sure if this is possible but what the hell). This would leave Japan with a free hand, but probably curtail their expansion into the lower Pacific Rim (as we would have found the continued expansion in that region unacceptable). My thought is that its possible that Japan COULD have been talked into opening a second front against the Soviets by Hitler (I know he was constantly after them to do so throughout the war, but with them committed to fighting for their lives against the US, and their inclination to not screw with the Soviets they never did).
If Japan had opened a second front in '41 (after Stalin stripped out several divisions from Siberia to counter attack the Germans after they failed to take Moscow) this might have put the Soviets in somewhat of a sticky situation…especially if they coordinated their attacks. And Japan COULD have done this and gained many of the natural resources they needed from Siberia as well.
With the Soviets fighting a two front war against both Germany and Japan they would be hard pressed to continue their offensive against Germany (which really didn’t get rolling until 43’ anyway if memory serves), while allowing Germany to concentrate on only the Soviets (and probably screw around more effectively in North Africa I suppose).
So, you wind up with a situation where Germany basically controls all of Western Europe and most of North Africa (I don’t think the British could have held out in Egypt without US supplies and intervention…I think they would have had to fall back on India), and the Soviets on the defensive against both the Germans and Japanese…and the remaining parts of the UK also in defensive mode. If nothing else, we are talking about a lot more years of fighting and a hell of a lot more deaths on all sides (except maybe Japans) than what actually happened…and probably an eventual stalemate with no clear resolution, only intermittant cease fires while the combatants took a rest and rebuilt for a fresh attack.
Grim picture. Maybe the US DID save Europe after all. However, I think that our intervention mostly saved Europe from the Soviets who would have taken the whole thing IMO without the US there to prevent it.
You’re forgetting the assistance we gave before entering into the war. What effect did Lend-Lease have on the war? I understand it was fairly considerable, both to England and to the Soviets.
Without the Americans, would the Miracle of Dunkirk have happened, due to lack of ships?
I’ve read that Britain was dependent on American food exports after the Germans invaded France. What about the other raw materials needed for their economy and war production? Did they have any sources other than convoys from North America?
I don’t think peace between the US and Japan was in the cards, absent complete cutoff of supplies to China (as in not letting China buy stuff at all), evacuation and neutralization of the Phillipines, and normalization of trade relations with Japan (although the latter is less critical if they can get SE Asia and the East Indies up and running without trouble (the Dutch listen to the Japanese about not trashing the oil infrastructure, etc)). Japan was pretty convinced that the only reason that China was staying in the war was because of western aid. Japan was also very worried about the threat American forces based in PI posed to its lines of communication to it’s new territories.
While I am confident that a handful of Soviet troops (relative to ostfront numbers) could have thrashed any realistic Japanese force in 42 as easily as they did in 39 and 40. (Assuming no US lend lease coming through Siberia) But why couldn’t the Soviets either ignore the invasion or buy off the Japanese. The Japanese may be spectacularly successful and still get nothing out of it. No significant infrastructure and a bad logistical situation made worse by more overextension. Any Chinese guerilla activity in the north now becomes doubly a threat as the troops that should be burning villages and slaughtering peasants are up fighting the Soviets rather than opressing the locals and preserving the lines of supply and communication. The money move for Stalin is to buy off the Japanese for a year or two until a separate peace can be obtained with Germany (or Germany wins). The virtues of invading Russia would be a hard sell.
As long as the Soviet Union is in the war the Germans can’t spare the forces to take North Africa outright. El Alamein is too far from Axis supply and too well fortified and defended for a realistic breakthrough with just the forces at hand. Granted, the Allied counter offensive is unlikely to happen quickly without American equipment and forces If the Germans can force the Soviets to a separate peace (some where between the '39 lines and a WWI Brest-Litovsk setup) then they can probably force Britain to a separate peace as well. If there is no US aid to the Soviets then there is likely to be a loong war of attrition - the Soviets will lack all of the non-sexy things that lend lease contributed that allowed for the offensives from 43-45, plus the full effects of the Germans going to a total war economy with a much smaller British-only strategic bombing effort. I think eventually you would end up with round one being a draw - enlarged Reich, diminished SU, economically weakened and fractured British Empire, quasi-independent France/French Empire, and Japan in a limbo. Everyone would be tooling up for round two.
I think there is no question that WWII would be a hell of a lot uglier without the US involved.
The U.S. was suppose to be neutral that means they don’t pick sides. I believe we should have extended the lend lease act to japan and never cut off supplies to them. when they bombed pearl harbor they didn’t think they could actually defeat us they just want to reconnect their supplies. why does it matter if England is getting fucked. England is in all out war with Germany why do their china and others matterif they cant defend themselves. China was in a civil war fighting for communism anyways. we hated the soviets because of they were communist. If we left Japan alone then they would have invade Russia and probable would have won. A fascist europe and asia is better than communist one.
I agree FDR is one of the most over rated presidents. If we were truly isolated then the depression would have ended on its own though supplying all countries fairly and not getting unnecessarily involved like we are today as well. we wouldnt have been put in a huge government debt and loss of good Americans lifes
However, I think that our intervention mostly saved Europe from the Soviets who would have taken the whole thing IMO without the US there to prevent it.