Would Germany still have lost the war in WW2 if America didnt get involve in the European conflict?

Question

I'm suspecting that, yes, they probably would of been defeated as they were already on a losing streak before the U.S. even stepped foot on the beaches of France.

Also, if the war were only between the U.S. and Germany, do you think the U.S. would of ended up victorious? I personally don't think they would of been able to take on the German armies without Russia. It wasn't until after the war that America's military became the most powerful in the world.

Answer 1

While you are correct that Germany was on its way to defeat prior to the Normandy landings, you aren't accounting for the fact that the us had been in the war for two and a half years before Operation Overlord.

I believe the key to Germany's defeat was resources. Germany did not have the natural resources, particularly fuel, to supply a prolonged conflict on many fronts. At the end of the war, German factories were still producing large amount of material, but little of it was able to leave the factories because of a lack of fuel to transport them to the fighting units.

Imagine this, the US doesn't declare war on Germany after Pearl Harbor (the US actually declared war on Germany, then Germany retaliated). Instead of making Europe a priority, FDR and the US military focus on protecting the Philippines and aggressively containing the Japanese threat. While supplies continue flowing to England through lend-lease, it is a shadow of what came with 8th Air Corps and FDR's commitment to destroy Germany first, then Japan.

German U-boats have fewer targets and convoys have fewer escorts. The 'Wolf packs' are able to significantly cut off the flow of material into the British Isles. There are fewer air raids on Germany, and the Luftwaffe is able to hold air superiority over the continent. With the available technology this is conceivable (although the Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain, it was still able to challenge RAF over the continent through 1943).

Because of this, German industry was able to produce the tanks and other armaments to keep the fighting forces fully supplied. With no threat of an invasion of East Africa, Rommel then would have had a full complement of effective tanks with which to attack Montgomery at El Alamein, and enough fuel for a long offensive. Despite Montgomery's strong defensive position, Rommel take Egypt and the Suez canal. After this defeat Churchill suffers a vote of no confidence, and a peace minded Prime Minister is elected in early 1944. England signs an armistice that guarantees English colonial possessions and England's right to rule the sea.

Germany then has then natural resources, industrial capacity, and manpower to contain the Russian army and bleed it to a standstill in the Ukraine by fall 1945.

As the US finishes destroying Japan, they become concerned with the Communist threat to Asia. Without England at war with Germany, the US doesn't ever declare war against Germany. Instead it aggressively arms England and Japan, while opening trade relations to Germany to fight the Red Menace.

As you can see, it is conceivable that Germany could have achieved a peace where it controlled Western Europe. It is also believeable that without American involvement in the European theater, Germany developed an atomic bomb and nuked the daylights out of England. This is all depending on a string of things going Germany's way, and depends on Hitler's mental instability not being a factor.

If the war was only between the US and Germany, neither side could have won. Neither had the ability to carry the fight to the other's continent, nor the support of the people for such a campaign. Instead the North Atlantic would have become a stage for intense skirmishes without long term significance.

Answer 2

Eventually, Hitler would have failed, even if the U.S. were not in the war. It was impossible fighting a two front war, and the Russians were ruthless in their drive toward Germany. What is important to remember is that the presence of the U.S. in the war prevented Western Europe from becoming communist and under the control of the Soviet Union.

If the war were only between the U.S. and Germany, I'd be hard pressed to see where it would be fought without other participants. Still, hypothetically, Hitler would have found a way to lose by getting others in the war, as he had a penchant for doing. In terms of numbers and technology, the U.S. had superior numbers and in some areas lacked in the techological prowess Germany possessed. Nevertheless, we would have developed the atomic bomb before the Germans and secured victory that way, I would imagine.

Answer 3

Hitler insisted on making military decisions, there was no way he could win a protracted two-front war. Keep in mind that if you eliminate the Japanese from the war as your hypothetical question seems to do, the British would have had significantly more resources to use against Germany.

In a war between just the U.S and Germany (the logistics of how this could ever happen are beyond me) the U.S. population in 1940 was over 132 million, Germany had approximately 71 million. The U.S manufacturing capability was 4-5 times larger than Germany's. The U.S. had domestic sources of oil/gas, iron, copper, etc. The cards were stacked in the U.S favor.

Answer 4

I believe so, by the time Germany attacked the Soviets, the Soviet war machine was outproducing the German one. Without the US support (arms as well as armies) Britain would have fallen for sure. Most likely it would have resulted in a stalemate with Germany gaining a lot of territory at Russia's expense.

Just the US vs. Germany, ends in stalemate as a transatlantic d-day would have been nearly impossible.

Answer 5

Actually due to Hitler's superstitious nature and poor command decisions, I think Europe would have won the war w/o the US. US and Germany alone- the same, I think. Americans of that generation were tenacious,patriotic, and willing to sacrifice.And FDR needed a war to save the economy. His other policies only made the depression worse. My father told me about u-boats off the coast of Long Island - the history books did not. We the people would have destroyed them for setting foot on our soil!

Answer 6

Possibly

Answer 7

no Germany would of won without a doubt, it was a combined effort by all countries that led to Germanys defeat and poor decision making on hitlers part, without the yanks there would have been no operation overlord we could not of carried that off without them and there valuable supplies its as simple as that, and with no operation overlord there was just Russia and north Africa to deal with, more troops would of been freed up and Germany would of eventually won on both fronts, Russia was on the verge of defeat and it was only the bitter Russian winter that saved them as Germany had a job getting enough supplies through to the troops fighting, had Hitler listened to his generals and pulled his troops out for the winter he could have regrouped and he would of defeated Russia without having to worry about an invasion from the west but its all ifs and buts but personally that’s my view Germany would of stopped Russia coming anywhere nears its borders without the threat that America posed, as for your second question I would refer to the begging of my answer no one country could have defeated Germany at that time they were miles ahead of everyone in terms of tactics and weaponry German engineering was superb at that time and remains so today

Answer 8

I don't think there's any doubt the Red Army would've overwhelmed the Werhmact, but you have to remember, the US had the nukes in the bullpen and any one-sided nuclear conflict would've had only one outcome.