Putting the "U.S." In Useless

[Alexander Suvorov]

If you'd named this thread say... "could the U.S. have achieved favorable result without direct involvement?" then this would be a good thread. but you used the word useless, so this will be seen as an attack on the U.S. reputation and contribution to the war effort. and I think we can all imagine how that's gonna go over.

The answer is no they could not. Yes, the Allies are probably still favored to win with the U.S. contributing only "indirectly" with money, ships, guns, bombs, etc. but the soviets would of been the big winners, the Soviets would have guided the peace process, taken vast swaths of territory and the pending confrontation the U.S. and Soviets would have been unknowably different.

 

[bkuepers]

I don't believe that was ever the OP's intention. Honestly, this statement smacks of knee jerk patriotism, something I detest.

I do agree that wasn't the intent of his post. However, the war on two fronts with German may have helped save democracy in Western Europe not to mention the sheer number of potential lives saved due to the shortening of the war. Not exactly useless... and not a good thread title.

 

[EU3NOOB]

I don't believe that was ever the OP's intention. Honestly, this statement smacks of knee jerk patriotism, something I detest.

Well, this thread, in my opinion smacks of knee-jerk America hate. Something I detest.

 

[adam_grif]

One of the worst clickbait titles I've ever seen for what is basically an uncontroversial thesis - that the war would be won without direct intervention but at greater cost and with the USSR left in control of most of Europe.

 

[Sharp163]

It could certainly have been worded better. :/

I tried leaving the question open, to promote discussion... Clearly that backfired a bit

 

[Sharp163]

One of the worst clickbait titles I've ever seen for what is basically an uncontroversial thesis - that the war would be won without direct intervention but at greater cost and with the USSR left in control of most of Europe.

I know that's not his point but it really came off as anti-American even though that was most likely not his intention. Although the title said "Putting the U.S in useless"..so I mean, he's not totally innocent.

If you'd named this thread say... "could the U.S. have achieved favorable result without direct involvement?" then this would be a good thread. but you used the word useless, so this will be seen as an attack on the U.S. reputation and contribution to the war effort. and I think we can all imagine how that's gonna go over.

The answer is no they could not. Yes, the Allies are probably still favored to win with the U.S. contributing only "indirectly" with money, ships, guns, bombs, etc. but the soviets would of been the big winners, the Soviets would have guided the peace process, taken vast swaths of territory and the pending confrontation the U.S. and Soviets would have been unknowably different.

The title was just worth a cheap laugh and a bad pun, I do not mean to diminish the value of the American lives who fought in defense of liberty overseas. I have the utmost respect for them.

 

[dav77-b]

Can anyone here explain me how the SU could have won without lend-lease?
No lend-lease means no trucks and no trains.
No food and various other stuff. Without trucks and trains no offensive could be successfull. An already starving nations without chance to make any offensive taking back agrar area?

I see no way for the SU to survive without lend-lease.

 

[Sharp163]

Can anyone here explain me how the SU could have won without lend-lease?
No lend-lease means no trucks and no trains.
No food and various other stuff. Without trucks and trains no offensive could be successfull. An already starving nations without chance to make any offensive taking back agrar area?

I see no way for the SU to survive without lend-lease.

My original statement said that lend-lease was critical, as without it the USSR and GB would've had a much more difficult time resisting Germany.

 

[Anichent]

The statement of the OP is completely true. War would have been won with or without the Americans as long as they kept giving their lend-lease support. Lets just break it down...did the American war declaration or direct involvement beyond lend-lease help the Soviets turn the tide against Germany? No. Germany was under-supplied, ill-equipped, and generally not properly prepared to the prolonged Russian campaign.
Would the war have lasted longer without the US? yes. Would Germany have invaded Britain? no. The result would likely be that more of Europe would have fallen under communist regimes after the war, and the war would have ended at a later date. But would Germany have won without US in the war? no.

Of course in a forum dominated by a lot of Americans you can't really expect them to accept it.

 

[Caesar15]

The title was just worth a cheap laugh and a bad pun, I do not mean to diminish the value of the American lives who fought in defense of liberty overseas. I have the utmost respect for them.

Ah I see. Sorry for over reacting there. Although I am willing to bet under your breath you're mumbling "freaking Americans can't take a joke." Can't blame you for doing that

 

[Alexander Suvorov]

I am flabbergasted that an internet thread with this subject line resolved so politely and respectfully.

nicely done gentlemen. -5 world tension.

 

[Amur_Tiger]

Can anyone here explain me how the SU could have won without lend-lease?
No lend-lease means no trucks and no trains.
No food and various other stuff. Without trucks and trains no offensive could be successfull. An already starving nations without chance to make any offensive taking back agrar area?

I see no way for the SU to survive without lend-lease.

Well for one they would have had trains and trucks and all those things, just less. Particularly with the trains bit there's a leap of logic made that the large part that US locamotives played in the expansion of Russian rolling stock during the war means suddenly they have as you put it 'no trains'. The Soviet Union had plenty of trains going into the war and the Germans never captured/destroyed anything even approaching half.
Likewise with food, lend lease never delivered anywhere near enough to feed the soviet union so clearly there was a lot if food produced even during the war years. Probably the biggest impact was going to be the trucks and likely this results in a Soviet Union that takes longer to go onto major offensives so Uranus would probably remain possible but Saturn afterwards would be impossible. Waiting for logistical networks to be woven.

 

[TheDerpyBeagle]

Can anyone here explain me how the SU could have won without lend-lease?
No lend-lease means no trucks and no trains.
No food and various other stuff. Without trucks and trains no offensive could be successfull. An already starving nations without chance to make any offensive taking back agrar area?

I see no way for the SU to survive without lend-lease.

The lend-lease to the Soviet Union only became substantial by 1943, and by this time the German offensive capability in the east was largely diminished, and the Soviet Union had already demonstrated its potential for offensives with Operation Uranus. You see to be largely overestimating the effects of lend-lease to the Soviet Union, and underestimating the Soviet Union's self sustainability. You seem to be implying that the US gave the Soviets ALL their trucks and trains, which is very far from the truth.

 

[Had a dad]

And closed. Thread titles for a cheap laugh, are flame.