Many people claim "WW2 was close" and without the US "Hitler would win" But the facts do not support this position. The British Empire and the Soviet Union had the industry, manpower, and resources, to destroy Germany, Italy, and their inconsequential European allies. So lets assume Japan bombs the US, The European axis do not declare war on the US, Britain does not declare war on Japan., and that turns into a limited war between the US and Japan alone. (as a side question, how fast do you think the US could have defeated Japan if the US gets to focus their entire forces and industrial production on the pacific?)
Now, point number one, the Soviets Defended Moscow in 1941, this was before any meaningful US lend lease arrived in Russia. So the even if the US sits out the war, Moscow does not fall, and the Germans lose their best chance of defeating the USSR.
Point number two, US lend lease food to Britain was a humanitarian effort to comfort the nutritionally vulnerable of Britain. But Britain would not collapse without this food. Same with all other lend lease to Britain, while the tanks and aircraft helped, they were not essential, Britain produced 50% more aircraft than Germany in 1940, in total Britain outproduced Germany in aircraft every year of the war except 1939 and 1944. The only thing Britain absolutely needed was destroyers to help defend British waters from U-boats. Britain got these in September 2, 1940, while the US was still neutral, and paid for these with basing rights to the US. If the US stays out of the war, Britain would still have these destroyers.
Point number three, if Britain does not get into a war with Japan, large numbers of Indian soldiers from the populous colony of British Raj can make it to Britain and Africa to partially make up for the lack of US ground troops helping out.
Point four, without US lend lease, the Soviets could indeed lose the Battle of Stalingrad, however, since huge amounts of US lend lease are not going up the Volga from allied occupied Iran, the Fall of Stalingrad is not very relevant except for propaganda reasons to the Nazis, and some morale loss to the Soviets. Due to German supply lines being past the breaking point, its doubtful Germany can hold Stalingrad into 1943, since the Germans in the city would be in a salient at risk of encirclement, and low on supplies. Army Group A would not reach Baku and its massive oilfields because the Caucasus mountains would form a formidable barrier, and the only way to Baku is a narrow strip of land with mountains on one side, and the coast of the Caspian sea on the other. If the Soviets fortify this pass, it would take months for Germany to breach it and would likely be forced to retreat before then.
Point five, Britain still wins in Africa, though later than happened in real life with American help. They would probably force the Axis out of North Africa by Summer of 1943, instead of spring 1943. The Soviets still go on the offensive in 1943, but dont make nearly as much gains as they did in our timeline. They probably only reach the Borders of Eastern Ukraine by the end of 1943, but none the less, Germany is being forced back. Germany launches a operation similar to Citadel around early 1944 to try to retake the initiative from the Soviets, but it turns into an attrition battle like Kursk and the Soviets ultimately win. British Troops land in Sicily around mid 1944 and Italy collapses.
Point six, by 1945, The British would be about 1/3 of the way up the Italian peninsula. Meanwhile the Soviets have reclaimed much of Ukraine and Belorussia. By this point, German defeat is obviously inevitable. By early 1946 the British Start making landings in France, and the Soviets would have taken eastern Poland and Romania. Germany quickly runs out of fuel and food, and the Soviets reach Berlin by August of 1946, meanwhile the British have liberated much of France with help from Free French forces. The British and Soviet forces would probably meet up along the Rhine river in western Germany, and the British only get the chance to invade far western parts of Germany.
To sum up my points, Germany was never going to be able to invade Britain, or knock out the USSR, save for a miracle. And thus the allies, even without the US, would always win through attrition, due to having more manpower and resources.
Now, point number one, the Soviets Defended Moscow in 1941, this was before any meaningful US lend lease arrived in Russia. So the even if the US sits out the war, Moscow does not fall, and the Germans lose their best chance of defeating the USSR.
Point number two, US lend lease food to Britain was a humanitarian effort to comfort the nutritionally vulnerable of Britain. But Britain would not collapse without this food. Same with all other lend lease to Britain, while the tanks and aircraft helped, they were not essential, Britain produced 50% more aircraft than Germany in 1940, in total Britain outproduced Germany in aircraft every year of the war except 1939 and 1944. The only thing Britain absolutely needed was destroyers to help defend British waters from U-boats. Britain got these in September 2, 1940, while the US was still neutral, and paid for these with basing rights to the US. If the US stays out of the war, Britain would still have these destroyers.
Point number three, if Britain does not get into a war with Japan, large numbers of Indian soldiers from the populous colony of British Raj can make it to Britain and Africa to partially make up for the lack of US ground troops helping out.
Point four, without US lend lease, the Soviets could indeed lose the Battle of Stalingrad, however, since huge amounts of US lend lease are not going up the Volga from allied occupied Iran, the Fall of Stalingrad is not very relevant except for propaganda reasons to the Nazis, and some morale loss to the Soviets. Due to German supply lines being past the breaking point, its doubtful Germany can hold Stalingrad into 1943, since the Germans in the city would be in a salient at risk of encirclement, and low on supplies. Army Group A would not reach Baku and its massive oilfields because the Caucasus mountains would form a formidable barrier, and the only way to Baku is a narrow strip of land with mountains on one side, and the coast of the Caspian sea on the other. If the Soviets fortify this pass, it would take months for Germany to breach it and would likely be forced to retreat before then.
Point five, Britain still wins in Africa, though later than happened in real life with American help. They would probably force the Axis out of North Africa by Summer of 1943, instead of spring 1943. The Soviets still go on the offensive in 1943, but dont make nearly as much gains as they did in our timeline. They probably only reach the Borders of Eastern Ukraine by the end of 1943, but none the less, Germany is being forced back. Germany launches a operation similar to Citadel around early 1944 to try to retake the initiative from the Soviets, but it turns into an attrition battle like Kursk and the Soviets ultimately win. British Troops land in Sicily around mid 1944 and Italy collapses.
Point six, by 1945, The British would be about 1/3 of the way up the Italian peninsula. Meanwhile the Soviets have reclaimed much of Ukraine and Belorussia. By this point, German defeat is obviously inevitable. By early 1946 the British Start making landings in France, and the Soviets would have taken eastern Poland and Romania. Germany quickly runs out of fuel and food, and the Soviets reach Berlin by August of 1946, meanwhile the British have liberated much of France with help from Free French forces. The British and Soviet forces would probably meet up along the Rhine river in western Germany, and the British only get the chance to invade far western parts of Germany.
To sum up my points, Germany was never going to be able to invade Britain, or knock out the USSR, save for a miracle. And thus the allies, even without the US, would always win through attrition, due to having more manpower and resources.
