如果美国没有卷入二战的欧洲战场，结果会是怎样？欧洲的战争会如何发展？如果美国没有同时在欧洲作战，太平洋的战争又会如何进行？
正文翻译
如果美国没有卷入二战的欧洲战场，结果会是怎样？欧洲的战争会如何发展？如果美国没有同时在欧洲作战，太平洋的战争又会如何进行？
评论翻译
Khalid Elhassan
哈利德·哈桑
Originally Answered: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European theater of WWII? How would the war in Europe have played out? How would the war in the Pacific have played out if the U.S. was not fighting in Europe at the same time?
原问题：如果美国没有卷入二战欧洲战场，结局会怎样？欧洲战事的走向会有何不同？如果美国没有同时在欧洲作战，太平洋战场的战事又会如何发展？
If the US had not gotten involved in Europe, the Soviets would eventually have beat the Germans on their own - in real life, by the time the Western Allies invaded France in the summer of 1944, the Soviets had already broken the back of the wehrmacht, and were already closing in on Germany’s border.
如果美国没有介入欧洲战场，苏联最终也能独自击败德国。事实上，在1944年夏季西方盟军入侵法国时，苏联就已经重创了德国国防军，并且已经逼近德国边境。
Without US involvement, the British would not have been able to invade France on their own. So the Soviets, instead of just occupying Eastern Europe and a third of Germany, would have gone on all the way to the Atlantic coast of France - and without breaking stride, would probably have then turned south to settle some scores with Franco in Spain. The end result would have been an entirely communist mainland Europe.
没有美国的参与，英国根本无力独自入侵法国。如此一来，苏联就不会只占领东欧和德国的三分之一领土，而是会一路推进到法国大西洋沿岸，并且可能会乘胜南下，找西班牙的佛朗哥算算账。最终的结果将是整个欧洲大陆都成为共产主义阵营的一员。
In the Pacific, with the US putting all her resources against Japan (in our world, 85% of the US war effort had gone to Europe, instead), Japan would probably have been defeated earlier - or at least rolled back all the way to the home islands, probably by 1944.
而在太平洋战场，如果美国将全部资源都投入到对日作战中（在现实世界里，美国85%的战争资源都投向了欧洲），日本可能会更早战败，至少到1944年时，日军会被彻底赶回本土岛屿。
Dughall Halliday
杜格尔·哈利迪
Studied at The Open University
Upvoted by Brady Swanson, Studied history extensively for six years
毕业于开放大学 获布莱迪·斯旺森（深耕历史研究六年）点赞
Originally Ans ered: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European theater of WWII? How would the war in Europe have played out? How would the war in the Pacific have played out if the U.S. was not fighting in Europe at the same time?
原问题：如果美国没有卷入二战欧洲战场，结局会怎样？欧洲战事的走向会有何不同？如果美国没有同时在欧洲作战，太平洋战场的战事又会如何发展？
Several other answers claim that the Soviet unx would have defeated Germany as it did, just a little later. It’s true that a large majority of German casualties were taken on the eastern front. I disagree with this however.
有不少回答认为，苏联最终还是会像历史上那样击败德国，只是时间会稍晚一些。诚然，德军的绝大部分伤亡都发生在东线战场，但我并不同意这种观点。
The Soviet unx imported all kinds of supplies and armaments from Britain and the USA. Without these American supplies, Soviet air power, industry and land mobility would have been much weaker. Even had the USA supplied the Soviet unx but without fighting Germany, I think it’s unlikely that Soviet forces would have been storming into Berlin. These are several reasons which I detail below.
苏联曾从英美两国进口各类物资和军备。如果没有美国的物资支援，苏联的空中力量、工业生产和地面机动能力都会大打折扣。即便美国继续为苏联提供物资，但不直接对德作战，我认为苏军也很难攻克柏林。具体原因我将在下文详细阐述。
Without the American army, the British Empire was stretched too thin to mount a serious invasion of Western Europe. No Festung Europa would have been necessary and large forces which were actually required to garrison Western Europe could have been freed up for the Eastern front. It’s true that these forces were small relative to the forces already employed in the east after 1941 but if you consider that many battles there were finely in the balance, even a few extra German divisions to overcome could made the Soviet relief of Leningrad or the encirclement of Stalingrad impossible.
如果没有美军的参与，大英帝国的兵力早已捉襟见肘，根本无力对西欧发动大规模进攻。如此一来，德国也就无需构建“欧洲堡垒”防线，原本用于驻守西欧的大批部队便可被调往东线战场。诚然，与1941年后投入东线的德军主力相比，这些增援部队的规模不算大，但要知道当时东线的诸多战役都处于胶着状态，哪怕只是多几个德军师，都可能让苏军无法解除列宁格勒的围困，或是无法完成对斯大林格勒的合围。
Without the American invasion of North Africa, it would have been relatively easy for the Axis to avoid losing their hold on North Africa, even if the British army was able to defend Egypt. There would have been no invasion of Italy and Italy would have remained in the war on the German side, requiring minimal German effort. Those quarter of a million German soldiers who surrendered in Tunisia in 1943 would not have been lost and the German divisions rushed into Italy could have headed east instead.
如果美国没有出兵北非，即便英军能守住埃及，轴心国也能相对轻松地保住北非的控制权。这样一来，盟军就不会进攻意大利，意大利也会继续作为德国的盟友留在战争中，而且德国几乎不需要为其投入太多兵力。1943年在突尼斯投降的25万德军将士也不会被俘，原本紧急调往意大利的德军师也可以转而开赴东线。
As early as 1942, Germany had to dedicate ever greater resources to defend against bombing. Although the bombing was a combined effort between the RAF and USAAF, take away the American daylight bombing and stretch British resources thinner in Africa and elsewhere and it would have been impossible for the RAF alone to sustain a significant strategic bombing campaign. Defence against bombing required perhaps a half of a million personnel and countless anti-aircraft guns. It required the full attention of the Luftwaffe which resulted in Germany losing air superiority on the Eastern front. Without the strategic bombing campaign, those thousands of guns and interceptors would have been fighting the Soviet forces.
早在1942年，德国就不得不投入越来越多的资源用于防空作战。尽管对德轰炸是英国皇家空军和美国陆军航空军的联合行动，但如果没有美军的日间轰炸，再加上英军的兵力还要分散到北非及其他战场，仅凭英国皇家空军根本无力维持大规模的战略轰炸行动。
当时，德军的防空作战需要投入约50万人的兵力和不计其数的高射炮，德国空军也不得不将全部精力投入其中，这直接导致其丧失了东线战场的制空权。如果没有战略轰炸的牵制，这数千门高射炮和战斗机就会被投入到对苏作战中。
Although Germany managed to increase armaments production right up until 1944, this was in the face of growing difficulties due to strategic bombing. Without the half a million Germans killed by this bombing, the factories flattened, transportation disrupted and cities razed, this production could have been much greater. The German army would have had more tanks, more aircraft for the east, more ships, submarines, V1 and V2s to keep Britain on the defensive.
尽管德国的军备产量一直增长到1944年，但这是在战略轰炸带来的重重困难下实现的。如果没有50万德国人在轰炸中丧生，没有大量工厂被夷为平地、交通线被切断、城市被摧毁，德国的军备产量本可以大幅提升。德军将拥有更多坦克、更多可投入东线的飞机，以及更多舰艇、潜艇、V1和V2导弹，从而牢牢掌握对英作战的主动权。
Finally, without American bombing, there would have been no German fuel crisis. Synthetic fuel production would have kept the Panzers rolling and the Luftwaffe flying even without Romanian oil.
最后，如果没有美军的轰炸，德国就不会遭遇燃料危机。即便失去罗马尼亚的石油供应，德国的合成燃料生产也足以支撑其装甲部队推进和空军作战。
In summary, even though the Soviet unx fought the large brunt of the land war considering this aspect alone drastically overestimates Soviet strength. Taking the American military out of the European war strengthens Germany’s strategic position immensely and I suspect would have made Soviet victory impossible.
总而言之，尽管苏联承担了陆战的主要压力，但如果仅从这一点来判断，就严重高估了苏联的实力。如果将美军排除在欧洲战场之外，德国的战略态势将得到极大加强，我甚至怀疑苏联根本无法取得最终的胜利。
Brandon Li
布兰登·李
Originally Answered: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European theater of WWII? How would the war in Europe have played out? How would the war in the Pacific have played out if the U.S. was not fighting in Europe at the same time?
原问题：如果美国没有参与二战欧洲战场，结局会怎样？欧洲战事将如何发展？如果美国没有同时在欧洲作战，太平洋战场的战事又会如何演变？
About 80% of all military casualties suffered by the European Axis (Germany, Italy, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Finland) were caused by the Soviet unx. If the United States didn’t intervene, the Soviets would have a noticeably harder time and would reach Berlin later, but they would still reach Berlin and burn it to the ground along with much of the rest of the Reich. I’m not sure the British and other Commonwealth countries would be strong enough to succeed in major naval landings like those that happened in Italy, Normandy, and Southern France.
欧洲轴心国（德国、意大利、罗马尼亚、匈牙利、保加利亚和芬兰）的军事伤亡中，约80%是由苏联造成的。如果美国不介入，苏联的作战难度会显著增加，攻克柏林的时间也会推迟，但他们最终仍会抵达柏林，将这座城市以及德意志帝国的大部分地区夷为平地。我不确定英国和其他英联邦国家是否有足够的实力，成功实施类似在意大利、诺曼底和法国南部那样的大规模登陆作战。
If they could not, then the entire continent would be put under communist occupation by the victorious Soviets. However, a US that was much more heavily involved in the Pacific would probably take a lot of stress of of the British in that area as well so perhaps more troops could be shipped west to fight the Nazis. Still, I’m betting on a later Soviet victory and communist Europe.
如果做不到这一点，整个欧洲大陆都将被获胜的苏联纳入共产主义阵营。不过，如果美国将更多精力投入太平洋战场，或许能极大缓解英国在该地区的压力，使英国得以向西线派遣更多兵力对抗纳粹。但即便如此，我依然认为苏联最终会取得胜利，只是时间会推迟，而欧洲也将成为共产主义的欧洲。
At last, Red alx comes to life!
《红色警戒》的剧情成真了！
Meanwhile in Asia, Japan would have been trounced even harder than it was in real life. The United States was responsible for the majority of Japanese casualties and even more in terms of material losses despite only using a small portion of its industrial and military might to fight in the Pacific. At this point, I’m entering into pure speculation, but easier American advances in this theater could also mean that the US would reach Japan long before the nuclear bomb was ready, forcing a conventional invasion, which would have killed millions.
与此同时，日本的惨败程度会比现实中更加惨重。尽管美国仅动用了一小部分工业和军事力量投入太平洋战场，但日本的大部分人员伤亡和更多的物资损失都是由美国造成的。这部分纯属我的推测：如果美国在太平洋战场推进得更为顺利，可能会在原子弹研发完成前就直抵日本本土，进而被迫发起常规登陆作战，这将导致数百万人丧生。
However, in real life, there was a heated discussion over the use of a less dramatic but also less costly combination of blockade and continued bombings. Considering the complete inability of the Japanese Home Islands to feed and fuel themselves, this could have worked.
不过在现实中，当时曾有过激烈讨论，有人提出采用一种相对温和但成本更低的策略——即封锁与持续轰炸相结合。考虑到日本本土完全无法实现粮食和燃料自给，这种策略或许能够奏效。
Mark Stouse
马克·斯托斯
Consulted w many militaries re ballistics, armament design.
为多国军方提供弹道学及武器设计咨询
Originally Answered: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European theater of WWII? How would the war in Europe have played out? How would the war in the Pacific have played out if the U.S. was not fighting in Europe at the same time?
原问题：如果美国没有参与二战欧洲战场，结局会怎样？欧洲战事将如何发展？如果美国没有同时在欧洲作战，太平洋战场的战事又会如何演变？
The Brits barely held on as it was, so if there was no Lend-Lease, then Germany would have prevailed. Simple mathematics. Even if Great Britain had not been invaded, it would have been isolated and essentially co-opted over time, particularly given Mosley and other British fascists of the time. I also do not see a realistic scenario wherein British Commonwealth troops successfully mount an invasion of Europe by themselves — Sicily, Italy, Greece or France. Again, pure math.
英国当时已是勉力支撑，如果没有《租借法案》的支持，德国必然会获胜。道理很简单：即便英国没有被入侵，长期的孤立状态也会使其逐渐被轴心国同化，尤其是在当时莫斯利等英国法西斯分子存在的情况下。而且我认为，英联邦军队单独发起对欧洲的登陆作战——无论是西西里、意大利、希腊还是法国——都不具备现实可行性。这同样是基于客观实力的判断。
Without Lend-Lease and without American military might, the Western Front would not have materialized, releasing all of the German resources on the Soviets. However, the struggle in the East would have remained a touch-and-go thing for sure, so it is possible that the Soviet unx could have not only absorbed Eastern Europe but the West as well, right up to the Channel. That is a scenario not often considered in a hypothetical like this one.
如果没有《租借法案》，没有美国的军事力量，西线战场就不会形成，德国将把所有资源都投入到对苏作战中。不过，东线战场的厮杀必然仍会异常惨烈、胜负难料，因此苏联不仅可能占领东欧，甚至有可能一路向西推进至英吉利海峡，将西欧也纳入版图。这种情况在类似的历史假设中并不常被提及。
As far as the Pacific War was concerned, it was THE war for many Americans, the US government’s Europe First policy notwithstanding. The Pacific War soaked up about 50 percent of men and light materiel, and an even higher percentage of naval forces. Without the ETO, I imagine that the Pacific War would have moved somewhat faster, shaving perhaps 6 months off the total. More land forces could have theoretically pursued more island invasions simultaneously, and the size and capacity of the US Navy would not have been a major limiting element, as ships kept coming online in huge quantities as it was.
尽管美国政府奉行“先欧后亚”政策，但对许多美国人而言，太平洋战争才是真正关乎切身利益的战争。太平洋战场消耗了美国约50%的兵力和轻型物资，海军兵力的投入占比则更高。如果没有欧洲战场的牵制，我认为太平洋战争的进程会加快大约6个月。理论上，美国可以投入更多地面部队同时发起多场岛屿登陆战，而且美国海军的规模和运力也不会成为主要制约因素——毕竟当时美国的军舰正以前所未有的数量不断下水服役。
upxe: One interesting “what if” here pertains to the use of the atomic bomb. It's possible that a completely focused American effort in the Pacific would have really crushed Japanese power, both faster and more completely, via conventional weapons. Assuming the historical R&D timetable is unaltered, it's possible that the war might have ended before Little Boy and Fat Man were operational. It's also possible that the US might have destroyed Japanese naval power to the point where the US felt comfortable about negotiating a conditional cessation of hostilities, keeping Japan out of the Pacific proper but leaving them to fight a land war in mainland Asia against the USSR et al. That, in turn, would have forced the Soviets into the same sort of two-front war that ultimately forced Germany’s collapse.
更新补充：这里有一个有趣的假设与原子弹的使用有关。如果美国将全部精力集中于太平洋战场，或许仅凭常规武器就能更快、更彻底地摧毁日本的战争能力。假设原子弹的研发进度与历史一致，那么战争有可能在“小男孩”和“胖子”原子弹投入使用前就已结束。还有一种可能是，美国在彻底摧毁日本海军力量后，会有底气与日本谈判，达成有条件的停战协议——将日本逐出太平洋核心区域，但允许其在亚洲大陆与苏联等国继续进行陆上作战。这种情况下，苏联将陷入与德国当年同样的两线作战困境。
Maurice Sasseville Lifelong student of history
莫里斯·萨塞维尔 历史终身研究者
Originally Answered: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European theater of WWII? How would the war in Europe have played out? How would the war in the Pacific have played out if the U.S. was not fighting in Europe at the same time?
原问题：如果美国没有参与二战欧洲战场，结局会怎样？欧洲战事将如何发展？如果美国没有同时在欧洲作战，太平洋战场的战事又会如何演变？
I see two possible scenarios.
我认为存在两种可能的情况。
If the US continued to provide arms and support to the Allied forces in Europe while committing the bulk of both their naval and armed forces in Japan; the results would have been similar as today with much higher casualties for Brittain’s allied forces (Canadians, Australians, Indian). The US could possibly win the war faster with the greater bulk of troops and ships. Although the Bristish would most likely pull their own resources in response to be better able to push back the Germans. One would assume that the American significantly increase their holdings in Asia as they did in Europe after the wall possibly leading to outright colonies in certain cases.
第一种情况：如果美国继续为欧洲盟军提供武器和支援，同时将大部分海军和陆军力量投入对日作战，最终结果可能与现实相差无几，但英国及其盟友（加拿大、澳大利亚、印度）的伤亡会大幅增加。凭借更庞大的兵力和舰艇规模，美国或许能更快赢得太平洋战争。不过，英国很可能会相应调动自身资源，以增强对抗德国的能力。由此可以推测，美国在亚洲的势力范围会显著扩大，就像二战后在欧洲那样，甚至在某些地区可能直接建立殖民地。
Where it gets complicated is how the Russians are affected. Fewer American forces means fewer planes and fewer bombings of factories and other targets. This also means that the Germans have better air cover and supply lines during the Russian invasion possibly allowing them to take Leningrad. This would give the Germans a significant strategic advantage and would not only solidify their supply lines, but allow them to fortify the city against attack. Arguably, the Russians could overtake the Germans even with this loss, but the final loss of life would be staggering and possibly would change the eastern front from German rout to bloody stalemate. The war in Europe would last probably another couple of years, possibly long enough for Germany to develop nuclear weapons. At that point, highly unlikely they would use it in Europe, but would not hesitate to bomb the Russians back into the stone age. In this scenario, the Germans would most probably be pushed out of France and Holland, but hold in Russia. Nuclear deterrent stops the Allies from going into Germany while the US warns of retaliation against Germany if bomb is used on European Soil. War ends with much of the old USSR in their hands…and a bloody campaign of occupation following their victory.
真正复杂的是对苏联的影响。美国兵力减少意味着空袭德国工厂和其他目标的战机数量会下降，德军在入侵苏联时就能拥有更强大的空中掩护和更稳固的补给线，甚至有可能攻克列宁格勒。这将为德国带来巨大的战略优势，不仅能巩固其补给线，还能加固该城防御，抵御苏军反攻。可以说，即便失去列宁格勒，苏联最终仍有可能击败德国，但伤亡数字会高得惊人，东线战场也可能从德军溃败演变为血腥的僵持局面。欧洲战争可能会再持续数年，时间或许足够德国研发出核武器。届时，德国极不可能在欧洲本土使用核武器，但会毫不犹豫地用它将苏联炸回石器时代。在这种情况下，德军很可能会被逐出法国和荷兰，但仍能在苏联领土上固守。核威慑会阻止盟军攻入德国本土，而美国会警告德国：若在欧洲使用核武器，必将遭到报复。最终战争结束时，德国可能仍控制着前苏联的大片领土，而在胜利之后，等待这片土地的将是血腥的占领统治。
Things pretty much work out the same way, with the US still providing supplies to Russians and allied forces while attacking the Pacific. The shift is basically one of manpower. The war ends with similar results with dates and casualty figures changing but in the end much to the same result.
第二种情况：美国继续向苏联和其他盟军提供物资支援，同时专注于太平洋战场。这种情况与第一种的核心区别主要在于兵力分配的不同。最终战争结果与现实大致相似，只是战争结束时间和伤亡数字会有所变化，但整体结局相差无几。
Cameron Smith I read a lot about history, and take a lot of history classes
卡梅伦·史密斯 历史爱好者，修读多门历史课程
Originally Answered: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European theater of WWII? How would the war in Europe have played out? How would the war in the Pacific have played out if the U.S. was not fighting in Europe at the same time?
原问题：如果美国没有参与二战欧洲战场，结局会怎样？欧洲战事将如何发展？如果美国没有同时在欧洲作战，太平洋战场的战事又会如何演变？
(This is how I believe the war would have ended up had the United States not entered the war in Europe.)
（以下是我对美国不介入欧洲战场时战争结局的推测。）
It is early August, 1945, the Pacific Theater of the Second World War. The bloodiest war, the most destructive war, in human history has been waging for six years, and for four of those years the United States and the Empire of Japan have fought a vicious all-out war of naval battles, aerial bombing campaigns, and island hopping. Today, an American Boeing B-29 Superfortress dropped a uranium gun-type atomic bomb named Little Boy on the city of Hiroshima. Three days from now, a plutonium implosion-type bomb named Fat Man will detonate over the Japanese city of Nagasaki. These attacks — the wrath of a new type of warfare — will kill approximately 130,000 people with only two explosions. Only two bombs.
1945年8月初，二战太平洋战场。这场人类历史上最血腥、最具破坏性的战争已持续六年，其中美国与日本帝国展开了四年的殊死搏斗，海战、空袭、跳岛战术轮番上演。就在今天，一架美国B-29“超级空中堡垒”轰炸机向广岛投下了一枚名为“小男孩”的铀枪式原子弹。三天后，另一枚名为“胖子”的钚内爆式原子弹将在长崎上空引爆。这两次攻击开启了新型战争的恐怖时代，仅用两枚核弹，就夺走了约13万人的生命。
In the Pacific, the war has been a story of American success and conquest, and it will all be winding down soon. In Europe, on the other hand, it has been a bloody game of tug-of-war between the Axis, led by the once infamous Third Reich, and the Allies, led not primarily by the British but rather by the fearsome Soviet war machine. The Germans are not winning.
在太平洋战场，美军一路势如破竹，战争即将落幕。而在欧洲，战局则是另一番景象：以曾经臭名昭著的第三帝国为首的轴心国，与以令人生畏的苏联战争机器而非英国为主导的盟军之间，展开了一场血腥的拉锯战。德军已显败势。
Nazi Germany’s once revolutionary tactic of Lightning Warfare cannot save the country from defeat now. Leningrad was an enormous embarrassment, and now, from that very volatile turning point, the Soviets have used their momentum to pursue a terrifying march for Berlin. In North Africa, the British have put up manageable but tough-enough resistance to bring a halt to the Nazis’ proud conquest — the Germans aren’t willing to spare anymore resources from the Eastern Front.
纳粹德国曾革命性的“闪电战”战术，如今已无力挽救其败局。列宁格勒战役的惨败是德军的奇耻大辱，而正是这个充满变数的转折点，让苏军乘胜追击，向柏林发起了势不可挡的猛攻。在北非战场，英军虽实力有限，但仍顽强抵抗，成功阻止了纳粹的扩张势头——德军已无法再从东线抽调更多资源支援北非。
On the Western Front — or what would have been the Western Front — the British have been plotting numerous invasion plans to liberate France and anything else possibly within their grasp to limit the inevitable Soviet victory. And now, with a newly nuclear-armed United States wrapping up in the Pacific and training its sights on Germany, the Nazis are feeling more pressure than ever before to either negotiate a cease-fire, peace treaty, or — God forbid — surrender.
在西线（或者说本应形成的西线战场），英国一直在策划多起登陆作战计划，试图解放法国及其他力所能及的地区，以此遏制苏联必然到来的胜利。如今，拥有核武器的美国即将结束太平洋战争，并将目光转向德国，纳粹面临着前所未有的压力：要么谈判停火、签订和约，要么——但愿不会如此——投降。
There is still a very simple problem for the people of Germany: their current leader, Führer Adolf Hitler, will not be agreeing to any treaties that will further weaken Germany’s image. They must fight to the bitter end. And they will.
但德国民众面临一个简单却残酷的现实：他们的元首阿道夫·希特勒绝不会同意任何有损德国形象的条约，德国必须战斗到底，而他们也确实会这样做。
When the war is all over, the Soviets will probably control a far greater stretch of Europe than either Britain or the United States would have liked, but Germany, no matter what plan B may be, will lose no matter what.
战争结束时，苏联控制的欧洲领土很可能会远超英美两国的预期，但无论德国采取何种备选方案，最终都难逃失败的命运。
Germany’s fall from grace could not have been avoided. Not without severe leadership reform. Any last measures now will simply be too little, too late.
德国的衰落早已注定，除非其领导层发生彻底变革，否则任何最后的挣扎都只是杯水车薪，为时已晚。
Liam Crowleigh
My father flew Lancasters 35 Sqdn Pathfinders
利亚姆·克劳利 父亲曾是第35中队“探路者”部队的兰开斯特轰炸机飞行员
Originally Answered: What would’ve happened if the US hadn’t intervened during WWII? Would the allies still have won?
原问题：如果美国没有介入二战，会发生什么？盟军还能获胜吗？
“What wouldn’ve happened if the US hadn’t intervened during WWII? Would the allies still have won?”
It’s a myth that the USA ‘intervened’ in WWII.
“如果美国没有介入二战，会发生什么？盟军还能获胜吗？”
所谓美国“介入”二战的说法其实是一种误解。
The US didn’t ‘intervene’ in WWII at all. They tried to stay out of it and only reluctantly joined in the War after war was declared on them by Japan followed quickly by Germany. If Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor the US would have stayed out of the War much longer and perhaps never have got involved.
美国根本不是主动“介入”二战的。他们原本一心想要置身事外，只是在日本对其宣战、紧接着德国也对美宣战后，才勉强加入战争。如果日本没有偷袭珍珠港，美国很可能会继续保持中立更长时间，甚至可能永远不会卷入这场战争。
If the USA had not been attacked and did not get involved in WWII, the likelihood is that the Allies would still have won the War, it just would have taken longer - perhaps another couple or 3 years.
如果美国没有遭到攻击、没有加入二战，盟军大概率依然能够获胜，只是战争会持续更久——可能还要再打上两三年。
Hitler’s invasion of Russia was basically the turning point in the War. Once the Soviets got mobilized the Nazi regime had to divert huge numbers of men and material to the Eastern Front that would otherwise have been available for either Africa or defending the Atlantic Wall. Because of the vast distances in the Russian steppes the Eastern Front also soaked up huge quantities of oil and lubricants that were almost irreplaceable to the Nazis. From then on time was against Hitler and the longer the War lasted the less chance the Nazis had of winning it.
希特勒入侵苏联是二战的根本转折点。苏联完成动员后，纳粹政权不得不将大量兵力和物资调往东线战场，而这些资源原本可以用于支援非洲战场或加固大西洋壁垒。由于俄罗斯广袤的草原地形，东线战场消耗了纳粹德国大量的石油和润滑油，这些资源对他们而言几乎是无法替代的。从那时起，时间就站在了希特勒的对立面，战争拖得越久，纳粹获胜的可能性就越小。
Rommel was trying to get to oil fields in Libya and the Middle East but they were denied to him. In Russia the Germans were trying to get to oil fields in the southern USSR but couldn’t make good on their quest. They were also slowly running out of steel and other raw materials, including food.
隆美尔曾试图攻占利比亚和中东的油田，但未能成功。在苏联战场，德军同样试图夺取苏联南部的油田，也以失败告终。与此同时，德国的钢铁和包括粮食在内的其他原材料也在逐渐耗尽。
Meanwhile Germany had lost the Battle of Britain and couldn’t gain control of the skies and therefore always had to worry about a counterattack from Britain, which eventually came in 1944. Hitler had split his forces between the East and the West and did not have the resources for a sustained war on two (actually 3 fronts if you counted N. Africa). It would eventually have been reduced to a war of attrition and Germany just couldn’t get the supplies to win such a war while the Commonwealth could source resources from all over the world and the USSR was big enough to be almost self-sufficient in such a war - especially with winter and geography on its side.
与此同时，德国在不列颠空战中失利，始终未能掌握制空权，因此不得不时刻提防英国的反攻——而这场反攻最终在1944年到来。希特勒的兵力被分散在东西两线，根本没有资源支撑一场双线（如果算上北非战场，其实是三线）持久战。战争最终会演变为消耗战，而德国根本无法获得打赢消耗战所需的物资补给。反观盟军，英联邦可以从全球各地获取资源，苏联的国土面积则使其在战争中几乎能够实现自给自足——尤其是冬天的严寒和得天独厚的地理条件，都对苏联有利。
Yes, the US being in the War in Europe did hasten the end, there’s no doubt about that. The millions of men and the tanks, ships, aircraft and munitions made a huge difference, but it didn’t change the eventual outcome. The Allies, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, S. Africa, Canada, USSR, India and all the other Allies together would have won in the end - they just would have taken a couple of years longer.
毫无疑问，美国加入欧洲战场确实加速了战争的结束。数百万美军以及大量的坦克、舰艇、飞机和弹药发挥了巨大作用，但这并没有改变战争的最终结局。英国、澳大利亚、新西兰、南非、加拿大、苏联、印度以及其他所有盟军国家，最终依然能够共同赢得胜利——只是会多花费几年时间而已。
Ian Chamberlain
Lives in Southampton United Kingdom (1996–present)
伊恩·张伯伦
现居英国南安普顿（1996年至今）
Originally Answered: If the United States had not been involved in World War II, how do you think that the conflict would have ended? What do you think would have happened to Europe afterwards?
原问题：如果美国没有参与二战，你认为这场冲突会如何结束？欧洲之后会发生什么？
The United States would have continued to have its factories in Germany producing war materials for the Nazi's.General Motors built every truck in the German arsenal and helped to research and manufacture Germany's high octane fuel.Ford and IBM also had factories in Germany and there is no reason why they wouldn't have continued to aid the German war effort if Pearl Harbour hadn't happened.
如果美国没有参战，其在德国的工厂很可能会继续为纳粹生产战争物资。通用汽车公司曾为德军制造了所有军用卡车，并协助研发和生产德国的高辛烷值燃料。福特公司和IBM公司在德国也设有工厂，如果珍珠港事件没有发生，没有理由认为他们会停止为德国的战争机器提供支持。
Rusdia beat the Germans,along with the other allies so assuming America continued to supply Russia with arms via British convoys Russia would have beaten the Germans.The war in the Western Desert was virtually over when America joined the battle in 1942 when the Nazi's were retreating.Italy would have been interesting but it was British intelligence that fooled the Germans into moving so many of their forces to Greece from Sicily.The American General Mark Clark screwed up Anzio and came close to seeing his army pushed into the sea.
苏联是击败德军的主力，其他盟军也提供了协助。因此，假设美国继续通过英国护航队向苏联供应武器，苏联依然能够击败德国。1942年美国加入北非战场时，西部沙漠战役实际上已近尾声，纳粹当时正节节败退。意大利战场的情况可能会有些不同，但值得一提的是，是英国情报部门成功诱骗德军将大量兵力从西西里岛调往希腊。而美国将军马克·克拉克在安齐奥战役中指挥失误，差点让自己的部队被赶下大海。
Would the 2 million strong British 14 th army have stayed in Mainland south east Asia or would some of them have faced Germany in Normandy? Over 70% of troops landed on D Day were British and Canadian. We have to assume Japan would have attacked America at Pearl Harbour but would the United Kingdom and it's allies, disregarding the US have fought the Japanese and helped them in their island campaign by tying down so many Japanese troops ? Probably not because all we would have owed America was money.We probably wouldnt have been allies with a country that supplied the Nazi's with weapons for the duration of the war,or at least I hope we wouldn't.
拥有200万兵力的英国第14集团军，会继续留在东南亚大陆作战，还是会抽调部分兵力前往诺曼底对抗德国？要知道，诺曼底登陆时，超过70%的登陆部队是英国和加拿大士兵。我们必须假设日本仍会袭击珍珠港，但如果抛开美国不谈，英国及其盟友是否会与日本作战，通过牵制大量日军来支援美国的岛屿战役？答案很可能是否定的，因为那样的话我们对美国就只剩金钱上的亏欠了。我们很可能不会与一个在战争期间向纳粹供应武器的国家结盟，至少我希望不会。
America wouldn't have got it's rocket scientists and therefore would have not even been part of the space race.They would have their money but NATO probably would have been formed without them..It was European countries that initially formed NATO in it's original form .The US and Canada joined later.The US even tried to veto the financial arrangements of NATO when they eventually joined and failed.
美国将无法获得那些火箭科学家，因此根本不可能参与到太空竞赛中。他们或许会拥有财富，但北约的成立很可能会将其排除在外。最初是欧洲国家组建了北约的雏形，美国和加拿大是后来才加入的。美国加入时甚至试图否决北约的财务安排，但最终未能成功。
Assuming the Allies had won,Russia and the British Commonwealth,The USA would be back in the wilderness they craved before World War Obviously we wouldn't have shared our nuclear secrets with them so they wouldn't have been able to screw us over during the Manhattan Project.British scientists were the first to split the atom.We shared millitary intelligence with them and even invited some of them to our code breaking centre at Bletchley Park.I doubt if we would have given them access to Enigma.Polish scientists broke the German codes and helped us,but why would we have helped the Americans ? They definitely wouldn't have been given the jet engines that powered their first jet fighter or been given the radar sets they were gifted at the beginning of the war.I suppose they would have had to invade Japan the hard way because our tube alloys technology would probably have stayed in Britain.
假设盟军（苏联和英联邦国家）最终获胜，美国将回到二战前那种他们所渴望的孤立状态。显然，我们不会与他们分享核机密，这样他们就不可能在曼哈顿计划中占我们的便宜。英国科学家是最早实现原子分裂的人。我们曾与美国分享军事情报，甚至邀请他们的一些人进入我们在布莱切利园的密码破译中心。但如果美国是纳粹的武器供应商，我怀疑我们是否还会允许他们接触恩尼格玛密码机。波兰科学家破解了德国密码并帮助了我们，但我们为什么要帮助美国？他们绝对不会得到为其第一代喷气式战斗机提供动力的喷气发动机，也不会得到战争初期我们赠予他们的雷达设备。我认为，美国将不得不以更艰难的方式入侵日本，因为我们的核技术（合金管计划）很可能会一直留在英国。
Michael Vic Tanumihardja
Lives in Jakarta
迈克尔·维克·塔努米哈查
现居雅加达
Originally Answered: Hypothetical Scenarios: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European Theater of WWII but still fought Japan?
原问题：假设场景：如果美国没有参与二战欧洲战场，但仍与日本作战，结局会怎样？
Western Europe will fall to the German occupation forces, with French already defeated, there is no hope for British forces to ever counterattack on mainland europe. They can only hold the Germany - and as Churchill say, There is no hope for Britain unless US were involved.
西欧会落入德军占领之下。法国已经战败，英军根本无力在欧洲大陆发起反攻，只能勉强抵御德军的进攻。正如丘吉尔所说，没有美国的参与，英国就没有希望。
British lost equipment in Dunkrik at masive scale, that wont recover easily. not like Germany which self sustain themself mostly, British rely on raw materials from their colonies and International Trade. British still relatively cant be Invaded by German Forces, with Royal Navy maintain supremacy and RAF. However With the lack of US help securing North Atlantic, British will crumble in U-Boat war, slowly wither away pieces by pieces
英军在敦刻尔克大撤退中损失了大量装备，这些损失难以轻易弥补。与基本能够自给自足的德国不同，英国依赖殖民地的原材料和国际贸易维持战争。凭借皇家海军的制海权和皇家空军的力量，英国本土暂时不会被德军入侵。但如果没有美国协助保障北大西洋航线的安全，英国将在德军的潜艇战中逐渐崩溃，一步步走向衰落。
Churchill probably gonna apeal to Stalin for Alliances, but without “Arsenal of Democracy” behind him, Britain will be in no position to do anything. having preocupied with prospect of Losing the war in long run.
The question were : Will British survive till the Soviet begun their counter offensive ?
丘吉尔很可能会向斯大林寻求结盟，但没有“民主兵工厂”美国的支持，英国将无足轻重，只能眼睁睁地看着战争长期下去必败的结局。
关键问题在于：英国能否撑到苏联发起反攻？
Soviet will defeat NAZI germany, with or without US. Simply there is no way for Germany to defeat USSR, even accounting the possibilities of German using Atomic weapons - USSR simply to large, that even in cold war, with Satelite mapping and fancy spy planes, there so much difficulty that US bomber command were aware that if they go to war, their bombers will mostly go miss the target and got lost deep in USSR territory rather than being shoot down by air defence system.
无论美国是否参战，苏联最终都会击败纳粹德国。德国根本没有能力战胜苏联，即便假设德国拥有并使用核武器也无济于事——苏联的领土实在太过广袤。冷战时期，即便有卫星测绘和先进的侦察机，美国轰炸机司令部也清楚地知道，一旦开战，他们的轰炸机大多会迷失在苏联腹地，而非被防空系统击落。
The Germans dont even have strong Strategic bomber arms to deliver atomic weapons, while they have other means of delivery like V2, the possibility of those rockets ever got to their targets were very slim.
The non involvment of US, will make USSR need more time to reconquer Europe but it wont change the outcome.
德军甚至没有强大的战略轰炸机部队来投放核武器，即便他们拥有V2导弹这类其他投送手段，这些火箭成功命中目标的可能性也微乎其微。
美国不参战只会让苏联需要更多时间重新征服欧洲，但不会改变最终的结局。
If the British survives until USSR push, they might still not be able to secure beachead, and launch Counteroffensive in mainland europe on their own, the German Forces without Western allied on their back might Retreat to French and watch Slowly their Fatherland fall into the hand of Red army.
即便英国撑到了苏军反攻，他们也可能依然无法在欧洲大陆建立滩头阵地并发起反攻。没有西线盟军的牵制，德军可能会退守法国，眼睁睁看着自己的祖国落入红军手中。
The British can only watch in horror, as Stalin’s grip slowly consume whole europe. Churchil in his comie paranoia have possibility that he might join forces with Germany if Hitler doesnt survive the war. and Fighting Soviet forces instead
in the end, All of europe will be in Stalin grip. and Britain will still be in same situation, just diffrence actor on the stage
英国人只能惊恐地看着斯大林的势力逐渐吞噬整个欧洲。出于极度的偏执，丘吉尔甚至有可能在希特勒死后，选择与德国残余势力联手对抗苏联红军。
最终，整个欧洲都会落入斯大林的掌控之中。而英国的处境不会有本质改变，只是舞台上的对手换了人而已。
Max Tollenaar in disguise
马克斯·托尔纳尔
匿名用户
Originally Answered: Hypothetical Scenarios: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European Theater of WWII but still fought Japan?
原问题：假设场景：如果美国没有参与二战欧洲战场，但仍与日本作战，结局会怎样？
The question is based on a misleading premise. It was Nazi Germany who declared war on the USA after Pearl Harbor, not the other way around.
这个问题的前提存在误导。事实上，是纳粹德国在珍珠港事件后对美国宣战，而非美国主动对德宣战。
But if I were to play along, American involvement in the European theater was large, prior to Pearl Harbor, in terms of supplying the UK and USSR. So, I will focus on the issue of whether the Americans had truly stayed out.
不过如果要顺着这个假设分析，需要指出的是，在珍珠港事件之前，美国通过向英国和苏联提供物资，已经深度参与了欧洲战场。因此，我将重点分析美国完全置身事外的情况。
If Germany had not attacked the USSR, and had instead concentrated on knocking Britain out of the war, it probably would have gone very badly for Old Blighty. Western and Central Europe would quite likely have become a German Empire, and parts of Eastern Europe would have been a Soviet Empire. This might have happened even with American supplies.
如果德国没有入侵苏联，而是集中力量迫使英国退出战争，那么英国很可能会遭遇惨败。西欧和中欧很可能会成为德意志帝国的领土，而东欧部分地区则会成为苏联的势力范围。即便有美国的物资援助，这种情况也有可能发生。
If Germany had attacked the USSR, as they did, and the USA had not been supplying the USSR or the UK, such that the UK would not have been in much of a position to supply the USSR, either, then the Germans would have been fighting with the hopes of a WWI-style collapse of the government in power. It is anybody’s guess as to what would have happened, but my guess is that most of the people of the Soviet unx would have seen what had happened to the Ukrainians—who welcomed the Nazis as liberators and allies, and who could have been turned on the Russians, but whom the Nazis treated as “untermensch”—and would have concluded that life under Hitler would have been far more dangerous than life under Stalin, and would have fought to the end.
如果德国像历史上那样入侵苏联，而美国完全停止向苏联和英国提供援助，导致英国也无力支援苏联，那么德军可能会寄希望于像一战那样，通过战争迫使苏联政府垮台。虽然最终结果难以预料，但我认为，苏联民众看到乌克兰人的遭遇后，一定会战斗到底。乌克兰人曾将纳粹视为解放者和盟友，本可以被煽动对抗俄罗斯人，但纳粹却将他们当作“劣等民族”对待。
Thus, the Soviets still would have won, but it would have been much bloodier and costly for the Soviets than it already was. Much, perhaps all, of Europe would have been a Soviet Empire.
苏联民众会由此得出结论：希特勒统治下的生活远比斯大林统治下的生活危险得多。因此，苏联最终依然会取得胜利，但战争会比历史上更加血腥，苏联也将付出更为惨重的代价。届时，欧洲的大部分地区，甚至整个欧洲，都将成为苏联的势力范围。
Nick Cooper
Author of 'London Underground at War' & 'City on Fire'
尼克·库珀
《战争中的伦敦地铁》与《燃烧的城市》作者
Originally Answered: Hypothetical Scenarios: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European Theater of WWII but still fought Japan?
原问题：假设场景：如果美国没有参与二战欧洲战场，但仍与日本作战，结局会怎样？
The problem with this scenario is that it assumes that only America has a hand in the Pacific game. The reality was that the British Commonwealth encompassed both India, which Japan was intent on attacking and occupying, and the same applied to Australia/New Zealand ditto. If America is pouring all its resources into the Pacific, the Commonwealth doesn't have to be as involved there as it was. All it needs to do is hold Japanese back from India, as opposed to the actuality of actively pushing them back into Burma.
Indian troops can then be redeployed to Europe, as can the ANZAC forces that in the real world participated in the Pacific island-hopping, and the British Pacific Fleet (which included more 21 aircraft carriers, four battleships, and eleven cruisers out of a total of over 200 ships and submarines).
这个假设场景的问题在于，它默认只有美国在太平洋战场发挥作用。而现实是，英联邦国家的势力范围既包括日本蓄意进攻和占领的印度，也涵盖了澳大利亚和新西兰。如果美国将全部资源投入太平洋战场，英联邦国家就无需像历史上那样深度参与该地区作战，只需阻止日军入侵印度即可，而非像实际情况那样主动将日军击退至缅甸境内。
这样一来，印度军队就可以被调往欧洲战场，参与太平洋跳岛战术的澳新军团以及英国太平洋舰队也能抽身增援欧洲——这支舰队拥有21艘航空母舰、4艘战列舰、11艘巡洋舰，各类舰艇和潜艇总数超过200艘。
The significance of Lend-Lease has also been vastly over-stated. The $31 billion worth of supplies Britain received from the US under Lend-Lease has to be off-set by the almost $8 billion worth Britain supplied to the US under Reverse Lend-Lease, but even the net cost of around $23 billion was dwarfed by a) Britain's cash purchases for US$ and gold in the US, and especially b) Britain's internal defence spending.
Lend-Lead was a massive help, and hastened the end of the War, but it would not have prevented it. It's also worth noting that Britain accepted American aid and made purchases from the US because it was available, not because it was the only option. Certainly food supplies could have been purchased from other others who - unlike America - were happy to deal in Sterling rather than dollars or gold.
《租借法案》的重要性也被严重夸大了。英国通过该法案从美国获得了价值310亿美元的物资，但与此同时，英国通过“反向租借法案”向美国提供了近80亿美元的物资支持。即便如此，两者相抵后约230亿美元的净援助额，与英国用美元和黄金在美国的现金采购额，尤其是英国自身的国防开支相比，仍相形见绌。
《租借法案》确实提供了巨大帮助，加速了战争的结束，但即便没有它，英国也不会输掉战争。值得一提的是，英国接受美国援助并从美国采购物资，是因为这些资源触手可及，而非别无选择。英国完全可以从其他国家购买粮食，这些国家不像美国那样只接受美元或黄金结算，而是乐于接受英镑交易。
So what all this means German is stuck between the Soviets in the east, and much larger British Commonwealth forces in the west. Whether that means fighting in all the same theatres is debatable (e.g. invading Italy first), but there would still have been a D-Day, maybe in 1945 rather than 1944. And rather than the two British beaches, one Canadian beach, and two American beaches we actually got, it may well have been two British beaches, one Canadian, one Indian, and one ANZAC.
综上所述，德国将陷入腹背受敌的困境：东线是苏联军队，西线则是规模更为庞大的英联邦军队。至于具体的作战战场是否与历史一致（例如是否先入侵意大利），尚有讨论空间，但诺曼底登陆这样的大规模登陆作战依然会发生，只是时间可能会从1944年推迟到1945年。而且登陆的部队构成也会改变，不再是历史上的两个英军登陆点、一个加拿大军队登陆点和两个美军登陆点，而可能变为两个英军登陆点、一个加拿大军队登陆点、一个印度军队登陆点和一个澳新军团登陆点。
Austin Moseley
奥斯汀·莫斯利
Originally Answered: Hypothetical Scenarios: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European Theater of WWII but still fought Japan?
原问题：假设场景：如果美国没有参与二战欧洲战场，但仍与日本作战，结局会怎样？
Without Lend Lease to the Russians via Iran or Torch - landings in Africa and then Sicily, Germany would have won.
Germany would have taken Cairo and then the Canal. The Russians would not have had the logistics tail to stop Case Blue.
如果没有通过伊朗向苏联提供的租借援助，也没有“火炬行动”——即登陆非洲随后进军西西里岛的作战计划，德国将会赢得战争。
德军将会攻占开罗，进而控制苏伊士运河。而苏联将缺乏足够的后勤补给能力，无法阻止德军的“蓝色行动”。
An interesting treatment of WWII is to look at true joint operations with Japan and Germany. Had Japan just attacked European militaries in the far East and ignored the US, it would have been hard for Roosevelt to get past the isolationists. Had Japan focused on splitting the Raj from the UK and isolating Australia, then it could have pushed on to Iran and then the Suez. And had Japan maintained the pressure on the Russians but carefully managed the losses, then the Russians could not have taken all the forces from the West.
探讨二战的一个有趣角度，是设想德国与日本真正实现联合作战。如果日本只攻击远东地区的欧洲军队，而不招惹美国，罗斯福总统将很难说服孤立主义者同意参战。如果日本专注于将印度从英国殖民统治中分裂出去，并孤立澳大利亚，那么它就可以进一步推进至伊朗，进而打通苏伊士运河。如果日本同时持续对苏联施加压力，又能谨慎控制自身损失，那么苏联就无法将部署在远东的部队全部调往西线战场。
Key decisive points:
关键的决定性因素包括：
Prevent Lend Lease to the Russians by keeping the US out as long as possible.
Remove the UK from SE and South Asia thus removing resources from the Allies and prevent them from supplying Russia.
Keep the US out of the European theater of war.
Take the Suez Canal and lix up with the IJN in the Red Sea.
Threaten Russia in the Far East with minor operations to tie down Soviet Armies stationed there.
1. 尽可能阻止美国参战，切断对苏联的租借援助；
2. 将英国逐出东南亚和南亚，剥夺盟军的资源补给地，使其无法向苏联提供支援；
3. 阻止美国介入欧洲战场；
4. 夺取苏伊士运河，与日本海军在红海实现会师；
5. 通过小规模军事行动在远东地区牵制苏联驻军，对苏联形成战略威慑。
Jon Hornbostel
乔恩·霍恩博斯特尔
Originally Answered: Hypothetical Scenarios: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European Theater of WWII but still fought Japan?
原问题：假设场景：如果美国没有参与二战欧洲战场，但仍与日本作战，结局会怎样？
This answer addresses the European portion of the question. Germany would have had considerably more resources to fight the Soviet unx after 1941, since only the British would be bombing Germany, and the British would have had fewer resources to do so. Even though the Strategic Bombing Survey suggested that the US bombing of the Axis powers was not as effective as it was hoped to be, it still tied up huge quantities of German resources (anti-aircraft guns, fighter aircraft, personnel, productive capacity, valuable metals, petro-chemicals for materials, lubricants, and fuels) and disrupted production and transportation.
本回答将聚焦问题的欧洲战场部分。1941年后，德国将拥有更多资源用于对抗苏联，因为届时只有英国会对德国实施轰炸，而英国的轰炸资源相对有限。尽管战略轰炸调查显示，美国对轴心国的轰炸效果并未达到预期，但这些轰炸仍牵制了德国大量资源——包括高射炮、战斗机、作战人员、生产能力、稀有金属、用于生产材料的石油化工产品、润滑剂和燃料等，同时还严重扰乱了德国的生产和运输。
The Soviet unx would have had fewer resources (especially motor vehicles; the US sent 450,000 to the Soviets during the war). This would have led to a much more drawn-out conflict, but the Soviets would have been victorious;
the only chance the Germans really had to defeat the Soviet unx was in 1941 before the US entered the war.
苏联获得的资源也会相应减少，尤其是机动车辆，战争期间美国向苏联提供了45万辆汽车。这将导致苏德战争的持续时间大幅延长，但苏联最终仍会取得胜利。德国击败苏联的唯一机会其实是在1941年美国参战之前。
Would there have been time and resources for the Germans to fully develop and produce their proposed secret weapons on a war-winning scale? That's the ultimate question, but I don't think it would have been enough to overcome the huge problems the Germans experienced in Russia: logistics nightmares (poor roads, bad weather, huge distances, guerillas behind the lines), and inadequate tanks and men to match the Soviets on the field of battle. The Soviets would have occupied a much larger portion of Europe when the war ended, leaving millions more living under Communism.
那么，德国是否有足够的时间和资源，将其研发的秘密武器大规模投入生产并改变战局呢？这是关键问题，但我认为，即便如此也不足以克服德军在苏联面临的巨大困境：糟糕的后勤保障（路况恶劣、天气恶劣、战线过长、后方游击队袭扰），以及在战场上与苏军对抗时坦克和兵力的不足。战争结束时，苏联将占领欧洲更大的区域，数百万民众将生活在共产主义制度之下。
Paul Marks
Lives in Kettering, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
保罗·马克斯
现居英国北安普敦郡凯特林
Originally Answered: What would have happened if the United States hadn't fought in Europe during WWII?
The question depends on whether the United States had done nothing - sent no aid to the Britain and the Soviet unx, or just not “fought” (actually sent soldiers into Europe).
原问题：如果美国没有在二战欧洲战场作战，会发生什么？
这个问题的答案取决于美国是完全不作为——即不向英国和苏联提供任何援助，还是仅仅不直接“参战”（即不向欧洲派遣地面部队）。
If the United States had done nothing at all then Nazi Germany would have won World War II - Britain would have collapsed in 1940 without American aid (“Lend Lease” and so on). And the Soviet unx would have collapsed after the German invasion of 1941 without Western (mainly American - but some British as well) aid. Even the trucks the Soviets used for transport were mostly American. And the Spitfires earmarked for Singapore were sent to the Soviet unx instead - this helped lead to the collapse of the British in the Far East when the Japanese attacked. Thousands of Allied sailors risked (and lost) their lives getting aid to the Soviet unx.
如果美国完全不作为，纳粹德国将会赢得二战。1940年的英国如果没有美国的援助（如《租借法案》等），就会崩溃。1941年德国入侵苏联后，如果没有西方（主要是美国，也包括部分英国）的援助，苏联也会走向覆灭。甚至苏联用于运输的卡车，大部分都是美国制造的。原本计划部署在新加坡的喷火战斗机被转而送往苏联，这也是日军进攻时英国在远东战场溃败的原因之一。成千上万的盟军水手为了向苏联运送援助物资，冒着生命危险，甚至付出了生命代价。
However, if the United States had continued to send aid and had just not sent soldiers of its own, the result would have been quite different. If the United States had continued to back the Soviet unx against Nazi German then, eventually, the Soviet unx would have crushed Germany and taken over Europe - all of mainland Europe (not just Eastern Europe). It is hard to see how Britain could have survived as an independent nation with ALL of mainland Europe under the control of the Soviet unx.
但如果美国继续提供援助，只是不派遣本国士兵参战，结果将会截然不同。如果美国继续支持苏联对抗纳粹德国，苏联最终会击败德国并占领整个欧洲大陆——而不仅仅是东欧。如果整个欧洲大陆都处于苏联的控制之下，英国很难作为一个独立国家存续下去。
Tom Au Amateur Historian, World War II Buff
汤姆·欧
业余历史学家，二战爱好者
Originally Answered: Hypothetical Scenarios: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European Theater of WWII but still fought Japan?
The Allies still would have won.
原问题：假设场景：如果美国没有参与二战欧洲战场，但仍与日本作战，结局会怎样？
盟军依然会取得胜利。
Germany did not have enough power to defeat both Britain and the Soviet unx by herself. In order to win the war, she needed Japan to stab Britain in the back (through India and the Middle East) and the Soviet unx through Siberia.
德国没有足够的实力同时击败英国和苏联。要想赢得战争，德国需要日本从背后牵制英国（通过入侵印度和中东地区），并从西伯利亚方向牵制苏联。
The U.S. entry into the war against Japan ensured that these scenarios would not have happened. The U.S. could have invaded Japan directly and won, of course, by 1945 if it had no commitments elsewhere. But a roundabout way of winning would be to liberate China in late 1943 or early 1944, and use that country’s manpower to 1) defend India and 2) help invade Japan, saving American lives.
美国对日参战，确保了上述情况不会发生。如果美国没有其他战场的牵制，到1945年完全可以直接入侵日本并取得胜利。不过，还有一种更迂回的取胜策略：在1943年末或1944年初解放中国，利用中国的人力完成两项任务——一是保卫印度，二是协助进攻日本，从而减少美军的伤亡。
With the U.S. fighting Japan, Britain and the Soviet unx would probably have beaten Germany on their own. But even assuming an improbable worst-case scenario where Germany beats the other two, a coalition of the U.S. Japan, China, India and Australasia could have waged and won a Cold War against a German-occupied Europe including Britain and Russia.
由于美国牵制了日本，英国和苏联很可能仅凭自身力量就能击败德国。但即便假设出现最不可能的最坏情况——德国击败了英国和苏联，美国、中国、印度和澳大拉西亚国家组成的联盟，也能够对被德国占领的欧洲（包括英国和苏联）发起并赢得冷战。
David Fred
Dedicated amateur historian. 160 books, and 100 web sources.
戴维·弗雷德
资深业余历史学家，研读160部专著及100份网络资料
Originally Answered: How would the world be different if the USA did not intervene on behalf of Europe during WW 2?
The whole of Europe, with the possible exception of Britain, would be called the USSR, up until the collapse of the Soviet unx, anyway.
原问题：如果美国在二战期间没有为欧洲提供援助，世界会有何不同？
除英国可能得以幸免外，整个欧洲都将成为苏联的一部分，这种局面至少会持续到苏联解体。
US materiel would be most missed, but I think ultimately the USSR could have beaten Hitler on their own. By D-Day, the Soviets controlled the war, and had since Kursk in July 1943.
It would have meant a longer war, with even more Soviet deaths, but after Kursk, It was over.
美国的物资援助确实至关重要，但我认为苏联最终仍能独自击败希特勒。到诺曼底登陆时，战争的主动权已完全掌握在苏联手中，而这一局面自1943年7月的库尔斯克战役后就已形成。
这意味着战争会持续更久，苏联也将付出更为惨重的伤亡代价，但库尔斯克战役之后，纳粹德国的败局就已注定。
But remember, US “intervention” was a result of Hitler’s idiotic declaration of war on the US immediately following Pearl Harbor. Had he not done that, the American Public may have demanded that we fight our war with Japan first.
But even without that stupid move, the US would always intervene in Europe. At some point, even without Pearl Harbor, we would have come in on Britain’s side, just as the Commonwealth nations will always support her.
但要记住，美国的“介入”源于希特勒在珍珠港事件后对美宣战的愚蠢决定。如果他没有这样做，美国民众很可能会要求政府先集中精力与日本作战。
不过，即便希特勒没有做出这一愚蠢举动，美国最终也会介入欧洲战事。即便没有珍珠港事件，美国迟早也会站在英国一边参战，就像英联邦国家总会支持英国一样。
Jian Yang
杨健
Originally Answered: Hypothetical Scenarios: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European Theater of WWII but still fought Japan?
原问题：假设场景：如果美国没有参与二战欧洲战场，但仍与日本作战，结局会怎样？
A lot of people seem to believe that the Soviets would have come out on top no matter what but without material aid from the US, it seems more likely that the Nazis would have pushed into Moscow and beyond. Keep in mind that the Soviets was able to produce so much war material precisely because America supplied it with everything else. It's not hard to imagine that without American aid, the Soviet armies would have been much less effective at resisting the Nazi advance.
很多人认为苏联无论如何都会取得最终胜利，但如果没有美国的物资援助，纳粹德军很可能会攻入莫斯科，并继续向东推进。要知道，苏联之所以能够生产出大量战争物资，正是因为美国为其提供了各类生产所需的资源。不难想象，没有美国的援助，苏联军队抵抗纳粹进攻的效率会大打折扣。
In my opinion, the Nazi advance will stall and stop as they march closer to Siberia but with their major population and industrial centres in the hands of the enemy, the Soviets will not be able to mount an effective counter-attack to push them out of Russia. The Nazis will have won the war in all but name (since the Russians and the British will not have given up), but their victory will not be long-lasting as partisan movements grow in strength in their vast occupied territories.
在我看来，纳粹德军的推进在接近西伯利亚时会陷入停滞并最终停止，但由于苏联的主要人口和工业中心都已落入敌手，苏联将无力组织有效的反攻以将德军逐出本土。此时的纳粹德国虽未彻底迫使苏联和英国投降，但实际上已经赢得了战争。不过，这种胜利不会长久，因为在其广袤的占领区内，游击运动将日益壮大。
The Pacific Theatre will play out quicker and bloodier than originally.
A quicker campaign in the Pacific will not necessitate a quicker delivery of the atomic bombs. Furthermore, with no fear of an invasion from the Soviet unx pressing down on them, Japan’s defeat will probably necessitate an invasion of the home islands, causing casualties in the millions.
与此同时，太平洋战场的战事会比历史上更快、更血腥地结束。但太平洋战争的加速并不意味着原子弹会更早投入使用，恰恰相反，由于日本无需担忧苏联的军事压力，美国要想击败日本，很可能需要直接登陆其本土，这将导致数百万人的伤亡。
Katja Bergman
Software Developer
卡佳·伯格曼
软件开发者
Originally Answered: Hypothetical Scenarios: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European Theater of WWII but still fought Japan?
原问题：假设场景：如果美国没有参与二战欧洲战场，但仍与日本作战，结局会怎样？
The USA was involved in WWII because it was also involved during the first WW. But the USA was neutral since 1937 with the exception of supplying the British, Russia and China with War Material so these countries could keep fighting. (Lend-Lease) The US also imposed economic sanctions against Japan, which were reasonably successful. It pressed Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor. US troops were also deployed in Iceland, so the British invasion force of Iceland could withdraw.
美国之所以卷入二战，与其参与一战的历史背景息息相关。1937年以来，美国表面上保持中立，实则通过《租借法案》向英国、苏联和中国提供战争物资，帮助这些国家继续抵抗。美国还对日本实施了经济制裁，且制裁效果显著，最终迫使日本铤而走险偷袭珍珠港。此外，美国还曾向冰岛派驻军队，使英国驻冰岛的占领军得以撤离。
So, if the USA had not been involved then that would mean that they would not have sent War material to the allied forces. Russia, Britain and China would have fallen and the Axis would have control over the European continent and have a major land-bridge through Asia to Japan, so Japan could receive plenty of supplies from Germany. Mostly oil, steel and certain chemicals.
因此，如果美国完全不介入二战，就意味着它不会向盟军提供任何战争物资。那么苏联、英国和中国都将战败，轴心国将控制整个欧洲大陆，并建立起一条贯穿亚洲的大陆运输通道，日本将能从德国获得大量物资补给，主要包括石油、钢铁和各类化学制品。
Japan would then focus on the conquest of Australia while Germany would focus on the Arab peninsula. The Italians would concentrate on Africa. And all three would focus on Russia and China, probably exterminating the Russian and Chinese population or bringing them down as cheap slave labor.
Chances are that the USA would not have been involved in any of the conflicts it is had stayed neutral, but it also meant that the USA would become isolated as the Axis would capture much of the World.
届时，日本将集中力量征服澳大利亚，德国会专注于占领阿拉伯半岛，意大利则会将重心放在非洲战场。与此同时，德意日三国会联手进攻苏联和中国，很可能会对俄罗斯和中国民众进行种族灭绝，或将他们贬为廉价的奴隶劳工。
如果美国始终保持中立，或许不会卷入任何冲突，但随着轴心国控制世界大部分地区，美国也将陷入孤立无援的境地。
Also important to realize is that Germany would have been the first to create nuclear weapons, not the USA. Germany would have had more resources for the required research. Germany would also be more technologically advanced, especially with computers. plankalkül was a German programming language created between 1943 and 1945 and since the War would have gone differently, it could have become a major programming language. No FORTRAN, COBOL or C, but German programming languages!
同样值得注意的是，德国将成为世界上首个拥有核武器的国家，而非美国。德国将拥有更多资源投入核研究，其科技水平也会更为先进，尤其是在计算机领域。普兰考克语（plankalkül）是德国人在1943至1945年间发明的编程语言，如果战争走向不同，它很可能成为主流编程语言。那样的话，如今我们使用的就不会是FORTRAN、COBOL或C语言，而是德国的编程语言了。
You could wonder how long the USA could stay outside the War. The attack on Pearl Harbor would not have been required for the Japanese since the USA wasn’t hostile. The attack only happened because the USA supplied the Chinese with various weapons and other material. You could wonder if the Axis would stop once they controlled Europe, Asia, Australia and Africa. But since they were basically destroying the local populations for their own “lebensraum”, they would not have any need for the American continents.
或许有人会问，美国能在战争之外保持多久的中立？如果美国没有对日本采取敌对态度，日本就没有必要偷袭珍珠港。事实上，珍珠港事件的爆发，正是因为美国向中国提供了各类武器和物资支持。有人可能会疑惑，当轴心国控制了欧洲、亚洲、澳大利亚和非洲后，是否会停止扩张？但考虑到他们的本质是通过消灭当地人口来掠夺“生存空间”，他们其实并不需要美洲大陆。
Thing is, the USA had already been involved in WWII before it actually started. The Americans were already against Germany and against Japan. Most Americans supported the Lend-Lease plan and supported War against the Axis, even without knowing what actually happened in Europe. Many Americans even volunteered to fight in Europe before the USA officially entered the war. They often changed their nationality to Canadian to do so, though. It was illegal for American citizens to fight for a foreign armed force. (It still is!)
但事实是，美国在正式参战前就已经深度介入了二战。当时的美国民众普遍对德国和日本抱有敌意，大多数人支持《租借法案》，支持对轴心国开战，即便他们并不完全了解欧洲战场的真实情况。在美国正式参战前，许多美国人甚至自愿前往欧洲作战，不过他们常常会先加入加拿大国籍，因为美国法律禁止公民为外国武装力量效力，这一规定至今仍然有效。
All the support the USA provided to the allied forces forced Japan to attack Pearl Harbor so shipments to China could be stopped. And Germany declared war to the USA because it recognized that the USA wasn’t as neutral as it claimed to be.
美国向盟军提供的各类支持，最终迫使日本发动了珍珠港袭击，以期切断美国对中国的物资供应。而德国之所以对美国宣战，也是因为它看清了美国所谓的“中立”不过是伪装而已。
Jacob Bunker
I am an American
雅各布·邦克 美国公民
Originally Answered: Hypothetical Scenarios: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European Theater of WWII but still fought Japan?
原问题：假设场景：如果美国没有参与二战欧洲战场，但仍与日本作战，结局会怎样？
If the American’s hadn’t intervened, but had still materially supported the Soviet unx, then the war would have likely lasted several years longer but would have resulted in a victory for the Soviet unx. Western Europe would likely fallen under Soviet control.
如果美国不直接介入欧洲战场，但仍向苏联提供物资支持，那么战争很可能会持续更久，但最终仍会以苏联的胜利告终，西欧也可能会落入苏联的掌控之中。
Claims that the Soviet unx could have won on their own simply because of the number of casualties they inflicted and suffered in the war are baseless. The number of people you have to mobilize only matters if you have equipment to arm them with, parts to keep their planes and tanks running, shells to give them artillery support, and supplies to keep them fed and clothed. The colonial era is chock full of examples of vastly outnumbered technologically advanced armies laying waste to their enemies.
那种仅仅因为苏联在战争中造成并承受了巨大伤亡，就认为苏联能够独自获胜的说法是站不住脚的。兵力规模的优势只有在具备相应装备的前提下才有意义——士兵需要武器武装，战机和坦克需要零件维持运转，炮兵需要炮弹提供支援，军队需要物资保障衣食补给。殖民时代有无数这样的例子：人数处于绝对劣势但技术先进的军队，能够将数量庞大的敌军彻底击溃。
If the United States had completely ignored the European theater, forgone any lend-lease of materials, and perhaps even maintained a free-trade policy with Germany, then the outcome of the war could have changed dramatically.
However it would be strange to see an American policy that went as far as to embargo Japan (which is what put them on the path to the Pearl Harbor attack) but that ignored the Axis in Europe.
如果美国完全无视欧洲战场，放弃任何形式的租借物资援助，甚至可能与德国保持自由贸易政策，那么战争的结局可能会发生巨大改变。
不过，美国如果采取这样的政策——即对日本实施严厉禁运（正是这一政策将日本推向了偷袭珍珠港的道路），却对欧洲的轴心国置之不理，那将是非常反常的。
哈利德·哈桑
Originally Answered: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European theater of WWII? How would the war in Europe have played out? How would the war in the Pacific have played out if the U.S. was not fighting in Europe at the same time?
原问题：如果美国没有卷入二战欧洲战场，结局会怎样？欧洲战事的走向会有何不同？如果美国没有同时在欧洲作战，太平洋战场的战事又会如何发展？
If the US had not gotten involved in Europe, the Soviets would eventually have beat the Germans on their own - in real life, by the time the Western Allies invaded France in the summer of 1944, the Soviets had already broken the back of the wehrmacht, and were already closing in on Germany’s border.
如果美国没有介入欧洲战场，苏联最终也能独自击败德国。事实上，在1944年夏季西方盟军入侵法国时，苏联就已经重创了德国国防军，并且已经逼近德国边境。
Without US involvement, the British would not have been able to invade France on their own. So the Soviets, instead of just occupying Eastern Europe and a third of Germany, would have gone on all the way to the Atlantic coast of France - and without breaking stride, would probably have then turned south to settle some scores with Franco in Spain. The end result would have been an entirely communist mainland Europe.
没有美国的参与，英国根本无力独自入侵法国。如此一来，苏联就不会只占领东欧和德国的三分之一领土，而是会一路推进到法国大西洋沿岸，并且可能会乘胜南下，找西班牙的佛朗哥算算账。最终的结果将是整个欧洲大陆都成为共产主义阵营的一员。
In the Pacific, with the US putting all her resources against Japan (in our world, 85% of the US war effort had gone to Europe, instead), Japan would probably have been defeated earlier - or at least rolled back all the way to the home islands, probably by 1944.
而在太平洋战场，如果美国将全部资源都投入到对日作战中（在现实世界里，美国85%的战争资源都投向了欧洲），日本可能会更早战败，至少到1944年时，日军会被彻底赶回本土岛屿。
Dughall Halliday
杜格尔·哈利迪
Studied at The Open University
Upvoted by Brady Swanson, Studied history extensively for six years
毕业于开放大学 获布莱迪·斯旺森（深耕历史研究六年）点赞
Originally Ans ered: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European theater of WWII? How would the war in Europe have played out? How would the war in the Pacific have played out if the U.S. was not fighting in Europe at the same time?
原问题：如果美国没有卷入二战欧洲战场，结局会怎样？欧洲战事的走向会有何不同？如果美国没有同时在欧洲作战，太平洋战场的战事又会如何发展？
Several other answers claim that the Soviet unx would have defeated Germany as it did, just a little later. It’s true that a large majority of German casualties were taken on the eastern front. I disagree with this however.
有不少回答认为，苏联最终还是会像历史上那样击败德国，只是时间会稍晚一些。诚然，德军的绝大部分伤亡都发生在东线战场，但我并不同意这种观点。
The Soviet unx imported all kinds of supplies and armaments from Britain and the USA. Without these American supplies, Soviet air power, industry and land mobility would have been much weaker. Even had the USA supplied the Soviet unx but without fighting Germany, I think it’s unlikely that Soviet forces would have been storming into Berlin. These are several reasons which I detail below.
苏联曾从英美两国进口各类物资和军备。如果没有美国的物资支援，苏联的空中力量、工业生产和地面机动能力都会大打折扣。即便美国继续为苏联提供物资，但不直接对德作战，我认为苏军也很难攻克柏林。具体原因我将在下文详细阐述。
Without the American army, the British Empire was stretched too thin to mount a serious invasion of Western Europe. No Festung Europa would have been necessary and large forces which were actually required to garrison Western Europe could have been freed up for the Eastern front. It’s true that these forces were small relative to the forces already employed in the east after 1941 but if you consider that many battles there were finely in the balance, even a few extra German divisions to overcome could made the Soviet relief of Leningrad or the encirclement of Stalingrad impossible.
如果没有美军的参与，大英帝国的兵力早已捉襟见肘，根本无力对西欧发动大规模进攻。如此一来，德国也就无需构建“欧洲堡垒”防线，原本用于驻守西欧的大批部队便可被调往东线战场。诚然，与1941年后投入东线的德军主力相比，这些增援部队的规模不算大，但要知道当时东线的诸多战役都处于胶着状态，哪怕只是多几个德军师，都可能让苏军无法解除列宁格勒的围困，或是无法完成对斯大林格勒的合围。
Without the American invasion of North Africa, it would have been relatively easy for the Axis to avoid losing their hold on North Africa, even if the British army was able to defend Egypt. There would have been no invasion of Italy and Italy would have remained in the war on the German side, requiring minimal German effort. Those quarter of a million German soldiers who surrendered in Tunisia in 1943 would not have been lost and the German divisions rushed into Italy could have headed east instead.
如果美国没有出兵北非，即便英军能守住埃及，轴心国也能相对轻松地保住北非的控制权。这样一来，盟军就不会进攻意大利，意大利也会继续作为德国的盟友留在战争中，而且德国几乎不需要为其投入太多兵力。1943年在突尼斯投降的25万德军将士也不会被俘，原本紧急调往意大利的德军师也可以转而开赴东线。
As early as 1942, Germany had to dedicate ever greater resources to defend against bombing. Although the bombing was a combined effort between the RAF and USAAF, take away the American daylight bombing and stretch British resources thinner in Africa and elsewhere and it would have been impossible for the RAF alone to sustain a significant strategic bombing campaign. Defence against bombing required perhaps a half of a million personnel and countless anti-aircraft guns. It required the full attention of the Luftwaffe which resulted in Germany losing air superiority on the Eastern front. Without the strategic bombing campaign, those thousands of guns and interceptors would have been fighting the Soviet forces.
早在1942年，德国就不得不投入越来越多的资源用于防空作战。尽管对德轰炸是英国皇家空军和美国陆军航空军的联合行动，但如果没有美军的日间轰炸，再加上英军的兵力还要分散到北非及其他战场，仅凭英国皇家空军根本无力维持大规模的战略轰炸行动。
当时，德军的防空作战需要投入约50万人的兵力和不计其数的高射炮，德国空军也不得不将全部精力投入其中，这直接导致其丧失了东线战场的制空权。如果没有战略轰炸的牵制，这数千门高射炮和战斗机就会被投入到对苏作战中。
Although Germany managed to increase armaments production right up until 1944, this was in the face of growing difficulties due to strategic bombing. Without the half a million Germans killed by this bombing, the factories flattened, transportation disrupted and cities razed, this production could have been much greater. The German army would have had more tanks, more aircraft for the east, more ships, submarines, V1 and V2s to keep Britain on the defensive.
尽管德国的军备产量一直增长到1944年，但这是在战略轰炸带来的重重困难下实现的。如果没有50万德国人在轰炸中丧生，没有大量工厂被夷为平地、交通线被切断、城市被摧毁，德国的军备产量本可以大幅提升。德军将拥有更多坦克、更多可投入东线的飞机，以及更多舰艇、潜艇、V1和V2导弹，从而牢牢掌握对英作战的主动权。
Finally, without American bombing, there would have been no German fuel crisis. Synthetic fuel production would have kept the Panzers rolling and the Luftwaffe flying even without Romanian oil.
最后，如果没有美军的轰炸，德国就不会遭遇燃料危机。即便失去罗马尼亚的石油供应，德国的合成燃料生产也足以支撑其装甲部队推进和空军作战。
In summary, even though the Soviet unx fought the large brunt of the land war considering this aspect alone drastically overestimates Soviet strength. Taking the American military out of the European war strengthens Germany’s strategic position immensely and I suspect would have made Soviet victory impossible.
总而言之，尽管苏联承担了陆战的主要压力，但如果仅从这一点来判断，就严重高估了苏联的实力。如果将美军排除在欧洲战场之外，德国的战略态势将得到极大加强，我甚至怀疑苏联根本无法取得最终的胜利。
Brandon Li
布兰登·李
Originally Answered: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European theater of WWII? How would the war in Europe have played out? How would the war in the Pacific have played out if the U.S. was not fighting in Europe at the same time?
原问题：如果美国没有参与二战欧洲战场，结局会怎样？欧洲战事将如何发展？如果美国没有同时在欧洲作战，太平洋战场的战事又会如何演变？
About 80% of all military casualties suffered by the European Axis (Germany, Italy, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Finland) were caused by the Soviet unx. If the United States didn’t intervene, the Soviets would have a noticeably harder time and would reach Berlin later, but they would still reach Berlin and burn it to the ground along with much of the rest of the Reich. I’m not sure the British and other Commonwealth countries would be strong enough to succeed in major naval landings like those that happened in Italy, Normandy, and Southern France.
欧洲轴心国（德国、意大利、罗马尼亚、匈牙利、保加利亚和芬兰）的军事伤亡中，约80%是由苏联造成的。如果美国不介入，苏联的作战难度会显著增加，攻克柏林的时间也会推迟，但他们最终仍会抵达柏林，将这座城市以及德意志帝国的大部分地区夷为平地。我不确定英国和其他英联邦国家是否有足够的实力，成功实施类似在意大利、诺曼底和法国南部那样的大规模登陆作战。
If they could not, then the entire continent would be put under communist occupation by the victorious Soviets. However, a US that was much more heavily involved in the Pacific would probably take a lot of stress of of the British in that area as well so perhaps more troops could be shipped west to fight the Nazis. Still, I’m betting on a later Soviet victory and communist Europe.
如果做不到这一点，整个欧洲大陆都将被获胜的苏联纳入共产主义阵营。不过，如果美国将更多精力投入太平洋战场，或许能极大缓解英国在该地区的压力，使英国得以向西线派遣更多兵力对抗纳粹。但即便如此，我依然认为苏联最终会取得胜利，只是时间会推迟，而欧洲也将成为共产主义的欧洲。
At last, Red alx comes to life!
《红色警戒》的剧情成真了！
Meanwhile in Asia, Japan would have been trounced even harder than it was in real life. The United States was responsible for the majority of Japanese casualties and even more in terms of material losses despite only using a small portion of its industrial and military might to fight in the Pacific. At this point, I’m entering into pure speculation, but easier American advances in this theater could also mean that the US would reach Japan long before the nuclear bomb was ready, forcing a conventional invasion, which would have killed millions.
与此同时，日本的惨败程度会比现实中更加惨重。尽管美国仅动用了一小部分工业和军事力量投入太平洋战场，但日本的大部分人员伤亡和更多的物资损失都是由美国造成的。这部分纯属我的推测：如果美国在太平洋战场推进得更为顺利，可能会在原子弹研发完成前就直抵日本本土，进而被迫发起常规登陆作战，这将导致数百万人丧生。
However, in real life, there was a heated discussion over the use of a less dramatic but also less costly combination of blockade and continued bombings. Considering the complete inability of the Japanese Home Islands to feed and fuel themselves, this could have worked.
不过在现实中，当时曾有过激烈讨论，有人提出采用一种相对温和但成本更低的策略——即封锁与持续轰炸相结合。考虑到日本本土完全无法实现粮食和燃料自给，这种策略或许能够奏效。
Mark Stouse
马克·斯托斯
Consulted w many militaries re ballistics, armament design.
为多国军方提供弹道学及武器设计咨询
Originally Answered: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European theater of WWII? How would the war in Europe have played out? How would the war in the Pacific have played out if the U.S. was not fighting in Europe at the same time?
原问题：如果美国没有参与二战欧洲战场，结局会怎样？欧洲战事将如何发展？如果美国没有同时在欧洲作战，太平洋战场的战事又会如何演变？
The Brits barely held on as it was, so if there was no Lend-Lease, then Germany would have prevailed. Simple mathematics. Even if Great Britain had not been invaded, it would have been isolated and essentially co-opted over time, particularly given Mosley and other British fascists of the time. I also do not see a realistic scenario wherein British Commonwealth troops successfully mount an invasion of Europe by themselves — Sicily, Italy, Greece or France. Again, pure math.
英国当时已是勉力支撑，如果没有《租借法案》的支持，德国必然会获胜。道理很简单：即便英国没有被入侵，长期的孤立状态也会使其逐渐被轴心国同化，尤其是在当时莫斯利等英国法西斯分子存在的情况下。而且我认为，英联邦军队单独发起对欧洲的登陆作战——无论是西西里、意大利、希腊还是法国——都不具备现实可行性。这同样是基于客观实力的判断。
Without Lend-Lease and without American military might, the Western Front would not have materialized, releasing all of the German resources on the Soviets. However, the struggle in the East would have remained a touch-and-go thing for sure, so it is possible that the Soviet unx could have not only absorbed Eastern Europe but the West as well, right up to the Channel. That is a scenario not often considered in a hypothetical like this one.
如果没有《租借法案》，没有美国的军事力量，西线战场就不会形成，德国将把所有资源都投入到对苏作战中。不过，东线战场的厮杀必然仍会异常惨烈、胜负难料，因此苏联不仅可能占领东欧，甚至有可能一路向西推进至英吉利海峡，将西欧也纳入版图。这种情况在类似的历史假设中并不常被提及。
As far as the Pacific War was concerned, it was THE war for many Americans, the US government’s Europe First policy notwithstanding. The Pacific War soaked up about 50 percent of men and light materiel, and an even higher percentage of naval forces. Without the ETO, I imagine that the Pacific War would have moved somewhat faster, shaving perhaps 6 months off the total. More land forces could have theoretically pursued more island invasions simultaneously, and the size and capacity of the US Navy would not have been a major limiting element, as ships kept coming online in huge quantities as it was.
尽管美国政府奉行“先欧后亚”政策，但对许多美国人而言，太平洋战争才是真正关乎切身利益的战争。太平洋战场消耗了美国约50%的兵力和轻型物资，海军兵力的投入占比则更高。如果没有欧洲战场的牵制，我认为太平洋战争的进程会加快大约6个月。理论上，美国可以投入更多地面部队同时发起多场岛屿登陆战，而且美国海军的规模和运力也不会成为主要制约因素——毕竟当时美国的军舰正以前所未有的数量不断下水服役。
upxe: One interesting “what if” here pertains to the use of the atomic bomb. It's possible that a completely focused American effort in the Pacific would have really crushed Japanese power, both faster and more completely, via conventional weapons. Assuming the historical R&D timetable is unaltered, it's possible that the war might have ended before Little Boy and Fat Man were operational. It's also possible that the US might have destroyed Japanese naval power to the point where the US felt comfortable about negotiating a conditional cessation of hostilities, keeping Japan out of the Pacific proper but leaving them to fight a land war in mainland Asia against the USSR et al. That, in turn, would have forced the Soviets into the same sort of two-front war that ultimately forced Germany’s collapse.
更新补充：这里有一个有趣的假设与原子弹的使用有关。如果美国将全部精力集中于太平洋战场，或许仅凭常规武器就能更快、更彻底地摧毁日本的战争能力。假设原子弹的研发进度与历史一致，那么战争有可能在“小男孩”和“胖子”原子弹投入使用前就已结束。还有一种可能是，美国在彻底摧毁日本海军力量后，会有底气与日本谈判，达成有条件的停战协议——将日本逐出太平洋核心区域，但允许其在亚洲大陆与苏联等国继续进行陆上作战。这种情况下，苏联将陷入与德国当年同样的两线作战困境。
Maurice Sasseville Lifelong student of history
莫里斯·萨塞维尔 历史终身研究者
Originally Answered: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European theater of WWII? How would the war in Europe have played out? How would the war in the Pacific have played out if the U.S. was not fighting in Europe at the same time?
原问题：如果美国没有参与二战欧洲战场，结局会怎样？欧洲战事将如何发展？如果美国没有同时在欧洲作战，太平洋战场的战事又会如何演变？
I see two possible scenarios.
我认为存在两种可能的情况。
If the US continued to provide arms and support to the Allied forces in Europe while committing the bulk of both their naval and armed forces in Japan; the results would have been similar as today with much higher casualties for Brittain’s allied forces (Canadians, Australians, Indian). The US could possibly win the war faster with the greater bulk of troops and ships. Although the Bristish would most likely pull their own resources in response to be better able to push back the Germans. One would assume that the American significantly increase their holdings in Asia as they did in Europe after the wall possibly leading to outright colonies in certain cases.
第一种情况：如果美国继续为欧洲盟军提供武器和支援，同时将大部分海军和陆军力量投入对日作战，最终结果可能与现实相差无几，但英国及其盟友（加拿大、澳大利亚、印度）的伤亡会大幅增加。凭借更庞大的兵力和舰艇规模，美国或许能更快赢得太平洋战争。不过，英国很可能会相应调动自身资源，以增强对抗德国的能力。由此可以推测，美国在亚洲的势力范围会显著扩大，就像二战后在欧洲那样，甚至在某些地区可能直接建立殖民地。
Where it gets complicated is how the Russians are affected. Fewer American forces means fewer planes and fewer bombings of factories and other targets. This also means that the Germans have better air cover and supply lines during the Russian invasion possibly allowing them to take Leningrad. This would give the Germans a significant strategic advantage and would not only solidify their supply lines, but allow them to fortify the city against attack. Arguably, the Russians could overtake the Germans even with this loss, but the final loss of life would be staggering and possibly would change the eastern front from German rout to bloody stalemate. The war in Europe would last probably another couple of years, possibly long enough for Germany to develop nuclear weapons. At that point, highly unlikely they would use it in Europe, but would not hesitate to bomb the Russians back into the stone age. In this scenario, the Germans would most probably be pushed out of France and Holland, but hold in Russia. Nuclear deterrent stops the Allies from going into Germany while the US warns of retaliation against Germany if bomb is used on European Soil. War ends with much of the old USSR in their hands…and a bloody campaign of occupation following their victory.
真正复杂的是对苏联的影响。美国兵力减少意味着空袭德国工厂和其他目标的战机数量会下降，德军在入侵苏联时就能拥有更强大的空中掩护和更稳固的补给线，甚至有可能攻克列宁格勒。这将为德国带来巨大的战略优势，不仅能巩固其补给线，还能加固该城防御，抵御苏军反攻。可以说，即便失去列宁格勒，苏联最终仍有可能击败德国，但伤亡数字会高得惊人，东线战场也可能从德军溃败演变为血腥的僵持局面。欧洲战争可能会再持续数年，时间或许足够德国研发出核武器。届时，德国极不可能在欧洲本土使用核武器，但会毫不犹豫地用它将苏联炸回石器时代。在这种情况下，德军很可能会被逐出法国和荷兰，但仍能在苏联领土上固守。核威慑会阻止盟军攻入德国本土，而美国会警告德国：若在欧洲使用核武器，必将遭到报复。最终战争结束时，德国可能仍控制着前苏联的大片领土，而在胜利之后，等待这片土地的将是血腥的占领统治。
Things pretty much work out the same way, with the US still providing supplies to Russians and allied forces while attacking the Pacific. The shift is basically one of manpower. The war ends with similar results with dates and casualty figures changing but in the end much to the same result.
第二种情况：美国继续向苏联和其他盟军提供物资支援，同时专注于太平洋战场。这种情况与第一种的核心区别主要在于兵力分配的不同。最终战争结果与现实大致相似，只是战争结束时间和伤亡数字会有所变化，但整体结局相差无几。
Cameron Smith I read a lot about history, and take a lot of history classes
卡梅伦·史密斯 历史爱好者，修读多门历史课程
Originally Answered: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European theater of WWII? How would the war in Europe have played out? How would the war in the Pacific have played out if the U.S. was not fighting in Europe at the same time?
原问题：如果美国没有参与二战欧洲战场，结局会怎样？欧洲战事将如何发展？如果美国没有同时在欧洲作战，太平洋战场的战事又会如何演变？
(This is how I believe the war would have ended up had the United States not entered the war in Europe.)
（以下是我对美国不介入欧洲战场时战争结局的推测。）
It is early August, 1945, the Pacific Theater of the Second World War. The bloodiest war, the most destructive war, in human history has been waging for six years, and for four of those years the United States and the Empire of Japan have fought a vicious all-out war of naval battles, aerial bombing campaigns, and island hopping. Today, an American Boeing B-29 Superfortress dropped a uranium gun-type atomic bomb named Little Boy on the city of Hiroshima. Three days from now, a plutonium implosion-type bomb named Fat Man will detonate over the Japanese city of Nagasaki. These attacks — the wrath of a new type of warfare — will kill approximately 130,000 people with only two explosions. Only two bombs.
1945年8月初，二战太平洋战场。这场人类历史上最血腥、最具破坏性的战争已持续六年，其中美国与日本帝国展开了四年的殊死搏斗，海战、空袭、跳岛战术轮番上演。就在今天，一架美国B-29“超级空中堡垒”轰炸机向广岛投下了一枚名为“小男孩”的铀枪式原子弹。三天后，另一枚名为“胖子”的钚内爆式原子弹将在长崎上空引爆。这两次攻击开启了新型战争的恐怖时代，仅用两枚核弹，就夺走了约13万人的生命。
In the Pacific, the war has been a story of American success and conquest, and it will all be winding down soon. In Europe, on the other hand, it has been a bloody game of tug-of-war between the Axis, led by the once infamous Third Reich, and the Allies, led not primarily by the British but rather by the fearsome Soviet war machine. The Germans are not winning.
在太平洋战场，美军一路势如破竹，战争即将落幕。而在欧洲，战局则是另一番景象：以曾经臭名昭著的第三帝国为首的轴心国，与以令人生畏的苏联战争机器而非英国为主导的盟军之间，展开了一场血腥的拉锯战。德军已显败势。
Nazi Germany’s once revolutionary tactic of Lightning Warfare cannot save the country from defeat now. Leningrad was an enormous embarrassment, and now, from that very volatile turning point, the Soviets have used their momentum to pursue a terrifying march for Berlin. In North Africa, the British have put up manageable but tough-enough resistance to bring a halt to the Nazis’ proud conquest — the Germans aren’t willing to spare anymore resources from the Eastern Front.
纳粹德国曾革命性的“闪电战”战术，如今已无力挽救其败局。列宁格勒战役的惨败是德军的奇耻大辱，而正是这个充满变数的转折点，让苏军乘胜追击，向柏林发起了势不可挡的猛攻。在北非战场，英军虽实力有限，但仍顽强抵抗，成功阻止了纳粹的扩张势头——德军已无法再从东线抽调更多资源支援北非。
On the Western Front — or what would have been the Western Front — the British have been plotting numerous invasion plans to liberate France and anything else possibly within their grasp to limit the inevitable Soviet victory. And now, with a newly nuclear-armed United States wrapping up in the Pacific and training its sights on Germany, the Nazis are feeling more pressure than ever before to either negotiate a cease-fire, peace treaty, or — God forbid — surrender.
在西线（或者说本应形成的西线战场），英国一直在策划多起登陆作战计划，试图解放法国及其他力所能及的地区，以此遏制苏联必然到来的胜利。如今，拥有核武器的美国即将结束太平洋战争，并将目光转向德国，纳粹面临着前所未有的压力：要么谈判停火、签订和约，要么——但愿不会如此——投降。
There is still a very simple problem for the people of Germany: their current leader, Führer Adolf Hitler, will not be agreeing to any treaties that will further weaken Germany’s image. They must fight to the bitter end. And they will.
但德国民众面临一个简单却残酷的现实：他们的元首阿道夫·希特勒绝不会同意任何有损德国形象的条约，德国必须战斗到底，而他们也确实会这样做。
When the war is all over, the Soviets will probably control a far greater stretch of Europe than either Britain or the United States would have liked, but Germany, no matter what plan B may be, will lose no matter what.
战争结束时，苏联控制的欧洲领土很可能会远超英美两国的预期，但无论德国采取何种备选方案，最终都难逃失败的命运。
Germany’s fall from grace could not have been avoided. Not without severe leadership reform. Any last measures now will simply be too little, too late.
德国的衰落早已注定，除非其领导层发生彻底变革，否则任何最后的挣扎都只是杯水车薪，为时已晚。
Liam Crowleigh
My father flew Lancasters 35 Sqdn Pathfinders
利亚姆·克劳利 父亲曾是第35中队“探路者”部队的兰开斯特轰炸机飞行员
Originally Answered: What would’ve happened if the US hadn’t intervened during WWII? Would the allies still have won?
原问题：如果美国没有介入二战，会发生什么？盟军还能获胜吗？
“What wouldn’ve happened if the US hadn’t intervened during WWII? Would the allies still have won?”
It’s a myth that the USA ‘intervened’ in WWII.
“如果美国没有介入二战，会发生什么？盟军还能获胜吗？”
所谓美国“介入”二战的说法其实是一种误解。
The US didn’t ‘intervene’ in WWII at all. They tried to stay out of it and only reluctantly joined in the War after war was declared on them by Japan followed quickly by Germany. If Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor the US would have stayed out of the War much longer and perhaps never have got involved.
美国根本不是主动“介入”二战的。他们原本一心想要置身事外，只是在日本对其宣战、紧接着德国也对美宣战后，才勉强加入战争。如果日本没有偷袭珍珠港，美国很可能会继续保持中立更长时间，甚至可能永远不会卷入这场战争。
If the USA had not been attacked and did not get involved in WWII, the likelihood is that the Allies would still have won the War, it just would have taken longer - perhaps another couple or 3 years.
如果美国没有遭到攻击、没有加入二战，盟军大概率依然能够获胜，只是战争会持续更久——可能还要再打上两三年。
Hitler’s invasion of Russia was basically the turning point in the War. Once the Soviets got mobilized the Nazi regime had to divert huge numbers of men and material to the Eastern Front that would otherwise have been available for either Africa or defending the Atlantic Wall. Because of the vast distances in the Russian steppes the Eastern Front also soaked up huge quantities of oil and lubricants that were almost irreplaceable to the Nazis. From then on time was against Hitler and the longer the War lasted the less chance the Nazis had of winning it.
希特勒入侵苏联是二战的根本转折点。苏联完成动员后，纳粹政权不得不将大量兵力和物资调往东线战场，而这些资源原本可以用于支援非洲战场或加固大西洋壁垒。由于俄罗斯广袤的草原地形，东线战场消耗了纳粹德国大量的石油和润滑油，这些资源对他们而言几乎是无法替代的。从那时起，时间就站在了希特勒的对立面，战争拖得越久，纳粹获胜的可能性就越小。
Rommel was trying to get to oil fields in Libya and the Middle East but they were denied to him. In Russia the Germans were trying to get to oil fields in the southern USSR but couldn’t make good on their quest. They were also slowly running out of steel and other raw materials, including food.
隆美尔曾试图攻占利比亚和中东的油田，但未能成功。在苏联战场，德军同样试图夺取苏联南部的油田，也以失败告终。与此同时，德国的钢铁和包括粮食在内的其他原材料也在逐渐耗尽。
Meanwhile Germany had lost the Battle of Britain and couldn’t gain control of the skies and therefore always had to worry about a counterattack from Britain, which eventually came in 1944. Hitler had split his forces between the East and the West and did not have the resources for a sustained war on two (actually 3 fronts if you counted N. Africa). It would eventually have been reduced to a war of attrition and Germany just couldn’t get the supplies to win such a war while the Commonwealth could source resources from all over the world and the USSR was big enough to be almost self-sufficient in such a war - especially with winter and geography on its side.
与此同时，德国在不列颠空战中失利，始终未能掌握制空权，因此不得不时刻提防英国的反攻——而这场反攻最终在1944年到来。希特勒的兵力被分散在东西两线，根本没有资源支撑一场双线（如果算上北非战场，其实是三线）持久战。战争最终会演变为消耗战，而德国根本无法获得打赢消耗战所需的物资补给。反观盟军，英联邦可以从全球各地获取资源，苏联的国土面积则使其在战争中几乎能够实现自给自足——尤其是冬天的严寒和得天独厚的地理条件，都对苏联有利。
Yes, the US being in the War in Europe did hasten the end, there’s no doubt about that. The millions of men and the tanks, ships, aircraft and munitions made a huge difference, but it didn’t change the eventual outcome. The Allies, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, S. Africa, Canada, USSR, India and all the other Allies together would have won in the end - they just would have taken a couple of years longer.
毫无疑问，美国加入欧洲战场确实加速了战争的结束。数百万美军以及大量的坦克、舰艇、飞机和弹药发挥了巨大作用，但这并没有改变战争的最终结局。英国、澳大利亚、新西兰、南非、加拿大、苏联、印度以及其他所有盟军国家，最终依然能够共同赢得胜利——只是会多花费几年时间而已。
Ian Chamberlain
Lives in Southampton United Kingdom (1996–present)
伊恩·张伯伦
现居英国南安普顿（1996年至今）
Originally Answered: If the United States had not been involved in World War II, how do you think that the conflict would have ended? What do you think would have happened to Europe afterwards?
原问题：如果美国没有参与二战，你认为这场冲突会如何结束？欧洲之后会发生什么？
The United States would have continued to have its factories in Germany producing war materials for the Nazi's.General Motors built every truck in the German arsenal and helped to research and manufacture Germany's high octane fuel.Ford and IBM also had factories in Germany and there is no reason why they wouldn't have continued to aid the German war effort if Pearl Harbour hadn't happened.
如果美国没有参战，其在德国的工厂很可能会继续为纳粹生产战争物资。通用汽车公司曾为德军制造了所有军用卡车，并协助研发和生产德国的高辛烷值燃料。福特公司和IBM公司在德国也设有工厂，如果珍珠港事件没有发生，没有理由认为他们会停止为德国的战争机器提供支持。
Rusdia beat the Germans,along with the other allies so assuming America continued to supply Russia with arms via British convoys Russia would have beaten the Germans.The war in the Western Desert was virtually over when America joined the battle in 1942 when the Nazi's were retreating.Italy would have been interesting but it was British intelligence that fooled the Germans into moving so many of their forces to Greece from Sicily.The American General Mark Clark screwed up Anzio and came close to seeing his army pushed into the sea.
苏联是击败德军的主力，其他盟军也提供了协助。因此，假设美国继续通过英国护航队向苏联供应武器，苏联依然能够击败德国。1942年美国加入北非战场时，西部沙漠战役实际上已近尾声，纳粹当时正节节败退。意大利战场的情况可能会有些不同，但值得一提的是，是英国情报部门成功诱骗德军将大量兵力从西西里岛调往希腊。而美国将军马克·克拉克在安齐奥战役中指挥失误，差点让自己的部队被赶下大海。
Would the 2 million strong British 14 th army have stayed in Mainland south east Asia or would some of them have faced Germany in Normandy? Over 70% of troops landed on D Day were British and Canadian. We have to assume Japan would have attacked America at Pearl Harbour but would the United Kingdom and it's allies, disregarding the US have fought the Japanese and helped them in their island campaign by tying down so many Japanese troops ? Probably not because all we would have owed America was money.We probably wouldnt have been allies with a country that supplied the Nazi's with weapons for the duration of the war,or at least I hope we wouldn't.
拥有200万兵力的英国第14集团军，会继续留在东南亚大陆作战，还是会抽调部分兵力前往诺曼底对抗德国？要知道，诺曼底登陆时，超过70%的登陆部队是英国和加拿大士兵。我们必须假设日本仍会袭击珍珠港，但如果抛开美国不谈，英国及其盟友是否会与日本作战，通过牵制大量日军来支援美国的岛屿战役？答案很可能是否定的，因为那样的话我们对美国就只剩金钱上的亏欠了。我们很可能不会与一个在战争期间向纳粹供应武器的国家结盟，至少我希望不会。
America wouldn't have got it's rocket scientists and therefore would have not even been part of the space race.They would have their money but NATO probably would have been formed without them..It was European countries that initially formed NATO in it's original form .The US and Canada joined later.The US even tried to veto the financial arrangements of NATO when they eventually joined and failed.
美国将无法获得那些火箭科学家，因此根本不可能参与到太空竞赛中。他们或许会拥有财富，但北约的成立很可能会将其排除在外。最初是欧洲国家组建了北约的雏形，美国和加拿大是后来才加入的。美国加入时甚至试图否决北约的财务安排，但最终未能成功。
Assuming the Allies had won,Russia and the British Commonwealth,The USA would be back in the wilderness they craved before World War Obviously we wouldn't have shared our nuclear secrets with them so they wouldn't have been able to screw us over during the Manhattan Project.British scientists were the first to split the atom.We shared millitary intelligence with them and even invited some of them to our code breaking centre at Bletchley Park.I doubt if we would have given them access to Enigma.Polish scientists broke the German codes and helped us,but why would we have helped the Americans ? They definitely wouldn't have been given the jet engines that powered their first jet fighter or been given the radar sets they were gifted at the beginning of the war.I suppose they would have had to invade Japan the hard way because our tube alloys technology would probably have stayed in Britain.
假设盟军（苏联和英联邦国家）最终获胜，美国将回到二战前那种他们所渴望的孤立状态。显然，我们不会与他们分享核机密，这样他们就不可能在曼哈顿计划中占我们的便宜。英国科学家是最早实现原子分裂的人。我们曾与美国分享军事情报，甚至邀请他们的一些人进入我们在布莱切利园的密码破译中心。但如果美国是纳粹的武器供应商，我怀疑我们是否还会允许他们接触恩尼格玛密码机。波兰科学家破解了德国密码并帮助了我们，但我们为什么要帮助美国？他们绝对不会得到为其第一代喷气式战斗机提供动力的喷气发动机，也不会得到战争初期我们赠予他们的雷达设备。我认为，美国将不得不以更艰难的方式入侵日本，因为我们的核技术（合金管计划）很可能会一直留在英国。
Michael Vic Tanumihardja
Lives in Jakarta
迈克尔·维克·塔努米哈查
现居雅加达
Originally Answered: Hypothetical Scenarios: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European Theater of WWII but still fought Japan?
原问题：假设场景：如果美国没有参与二战欧洲战场，但仍与日本作战，结局会怎样？
Western Europe will fall to the German occupation forces, with French already defeated, there is no hope for British forces to ever counterattack on mainland europe. They can only hold the Germany - and as Churchill say, There is no hope for Britain unless US were involved.
西欧会落入德军占领之下。法国已经战败，英军根本无力在欧洲大陆发起反攻，只能勉强抵御德军的进攻。正如丘吉尔所说，没有美国的参与，英国就没有希望。
British lost equipment in Dunkrik at masive scale, that wont recover easily. not like Germany which self sustain themself mostly, British rely on raw materials from their colonies and International Trade. British still relatively cant be Invaded by German Forces, with Royal Navy maintain supremacy and RAF. However With the lack of US help securing North Atlantic, British will crumble in U-Boat war, slowly wither away pieces by pieces
英军在敦刻尔克大撤退中损失了大量装备，这些损失难以轻易弥补。与基本能够自给自足的德国不同，英国依赖殖民地的原材料和国际贸易维持战争。凭借皇家海军的制海权和皇家空军的力量，英国本土暂时不会被德军入侵。但如果没有美国协助保障北大西洋航线的安全，英国将在德军的潜艇战中逐渐崩溃，一步步走向衰落。
Churchill probably gonna apeal to Stalin for Alliances, but without “Arsenal of Democracy” behind him, Britain will be in no position to do anything. having preocupied with prospect of Losing the war in long run.
The question were : Will British survive till the Soviet begun their counter offensive ?
丘吉尔很可能会向斯大林寻求结盟，但没有“民主兵工厂”美国的支持，英国将无足轻重，只能眼睁睁地看着战争长期下去必败的结局。
关键问题在于：英国能否撑到苏联发起反攻？
Soviet will defeat NAZI germany, with or without US. Simply there is no way for Germany to defeat USSR, even accounting the possibilities of German using Atomic weapons - USSR simply to large, that even in cold war, with Satelite mapping and fancy spy planes, there so much difficulty that US bomber command were aware that if they go to war, their bombers will mostly go miss the target and got lost deep in USSR territory rather than being shoot down by air defence system.
无论美国是否参战，苏联最终都会击败纳粹德国。德国根本没有能力战胜苏联，即便假设德国拥有并使用核武器也无济于事——苏联的领土实在太过广袤。冷战时期，即便有卫星测绘和先进的侦察机，美国轰炸机司令部也清楚地知道，一旦开战，他们的轰炸机大多会迷失在苏联腹地，而非被防空系统击落。
The Germans dont even have strong Strategic bomber arms to deliver atomic weapons, while they have other means of delivery like V2, the possibility of those rockets ever got to their targets were very slim.
The non involvment of US, will make USSR need more time to reconquer Europe but it wont change the outcome.
德军甚至没有强大的战略轰炸机部队来投放核武器，即便他们拥有V2导弹这类其他投送手段，这些火箭成功命中目标的可能性也微乎其微。
美国不参战只会让苏联需要更多时间重新征服欧洲，但不会改变最终的结局。
If the British survives until USSR push, they might still not be able to secure beachead, and launch Counteroffensive in mainland europe on their own, the German Forces without Western allied on their back might Retreat to French and watch Slowly their Fatherland fall into the hand of Red army.
即便英国撑到了苏军反攻，他们也可能依然无法在欧洲大陆建立滩头阵地并发起反攻。没有西线盟军的牵制，德军可能会退守法国，眼睁睁看着自己的祖国落入红军手中。
The British can only watch in horror, as Stalin’s grip slowly consume whole europe. Churchil in his comie paranoia have possibility that he might join forces with Germany if Hitler doesnt survive the war. and Fighting Soviet forces instead
in the end, All of europe will be in Stalin grip. and Britain will still be in same situation, just diffrence actor on the stage
英国人只能惊恐地看着斯大林的势力逐渐吞噬整个欧洲。出于极度的偏执，丘吉尔甚至有可能在希特勒死后，选择与德国残余势力联手对抗苏联红军。
最终，整个欧洲都会落入斯大林的掌控之中。而英国的处境不会有本质改变，只是舞台上的对手换了人而已。
Max Tollenaar in disguise
马克斯·托尔纳尔
匿名用户
Originally Answered: Hypothetical Scenarios: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European Theater of WWII but still fought Japan?
原问题：假设场景：如果美国没有参与二战欧洲战场，但仍与日本作战，结局会怎样？
The question is based on a misleading premise. It was Nazi Germany who declared war on the USA after Pearl Harbor, not the other way around.
这个问题的前提存在误导。事实上，是纳粹德国在珍珠港事件后对美国宣战，而非美国主动对德宣战。
But if I were to play along, American involvement in the European theater was large, prior to Pearl Harbor, in terms of supplying the UK and USSR. So, I will focus on the issue of whether the Americans had truly stayed out.
不过如果要顺着这个假设分析，需要指出的是，在珍珠港事件之前，美国通过向英国和苏联提供物资，已经深度参与了欧洲战场。因此，我将重点分析美国完全置身事外的情况。
If Germany had not attacked the USSR, and had instead concentrated on knocking Britain out of the war, it probably would have gone very badly for Old Blighty. Western and Central Europe would quite likely have become a German Empire, and parts of Eastern Europe would have been a Soviet Empire. This might have happened even with American supplies.
如果德国没有入侵苏联，而是集中力量迫使英国退出战争，那么英国很可能会遭遇惨败。西欧和中欧很可能会成为德意志帝国的领土，而东欧部分地区则会成为苏联的势力范围。即便有美国的物资援助，这种情况也有可能发生。
If Germany had attacked the USSR, as they did, and the USA had not been supplying the USSR or the UK, such that the UK would not have been in much of a position to supply the USSR, either, then the Germans would have been fighting with the hopes of a WWI-style collapse of the government in power. It is anybody’s guess as to what would have happened, but my guess is that most of the people of the Soviet unx would have seen what had happened to the Ukrainians—who welcomed the Nazis as liberators and allies, and who could have been turned on the Russians, but whom the Nazis treated as “untermensch”—and would have concluded that life under Hitler would have been far more dangerous than life under Stalin, and would have fought to the end.
如果德国像历史上那样入侵苏联，而美国完全停止向苏联和英国提供援助，导致英国也无力支援苏联，那么德军可能会寄希望于像一战那样，通过战争迫使苏联政府垮台。虽然最终结果难以预料，但我认为，苏联民众看到乌克兰人的遭遇后，一定会战斗到底。乌克兰人曾将纳粹视为解放者和盟友，本可以被煽动对抗俄罗斯人，但纳粹却将他们当作“劣等民族”对待。
Thus, the Soviets still would have won, but it would have been much bloodier and costly for the Soviets than it already was. Much, perhaps all, of Europe would have been a Soviet Empire.
苏联民众会由此得出结论：希特勒统治下的生活远比斯大林统治下的生活危险得多。因此，苏联最终依然会取得胜利，但战争会比历史上更加血腥，苏联也将付出更为惨重的代价。届时，欧洲的大部分地区，甚至整个欧洲，都将成为苏联的势力范围。
Nick Cooper
Author of 'London Underground at War' & 'City on Fire'
尼克·库珀
《战争中的伦敦地铁》与《燃烧的城市》作者
Originally Answered: Hypothetical Scenarios: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European Theater of WWII but still fought Japan?
原问题：假设场景：如果美国没有参与二战欧洲战场，但仍与日本作战，结局会怎样？
The problem with this scenario is that it assumes that only America has a hand in the Pacific game. The reality was that the British Commonwealth encompassed both India, which Japan was intent on attacking and occupying, and the same applied to Australia/New Zealand ditto. If America is pouring all its resources into the Pacific, the Commonwealth doesn't have to be as involved there as it was. All it needs to do is hold Japanese back from India, as opposed to the actuality of actively pushing them back into Burma.
Indian troops can then be redeployed to Europe, as can the ANZAC forces that in the real world participated in the Pacific island-hopping, and the British Pacific Fleet (which included more 21 aircraft carriers, four battleships, and eleven cruisers out of a total of over 200 ships and submarines).
这个假设场景的问题在于，它默认只有美国在太平洋战场发挥作用。而现实是，英联邦国家的势力范围既包括日本蓄意进攻和占领的印度，也涵盖了澳大利亚和新西兰。如果美国将全部资源投入太平洋战场，英联邦国家就无需像历史上那样深度参与该地区作战，只需阻止日军入侵印度即可，而非像实际情况那样主动将日军击退至缅甸境内。
这样一来，印度军队就可以被调往欧洲战场，参与太平洋跳岛战术的澳新军团以及英国太平洋舰队也能抽身增援欧洲——这支舰队拥有21艘航空母舰、4艘战列舰、11艘巡洋舰，各类舰艇和潜艇总数超过200艘。
The significance of Lend-Lease has also been vastly over-stated. The $31 billion worth of supplies Britain received from the US under Lend-Lease has to be off-set by the almost $8 billion worth Britain supplied to the US under Reverse Lend-Lease, but even the net cost of around $23 billion was dwarfed by a) Britain's cash purchases for US$ and gold in the US, and especially b) Britain's internal defence spending.
Lend-Lead was a massive help, and hastened the end of the War, but it would not have prevented it. It's also worth noting that Britain accepted American aid and made purchases from the US because it was available, not because it was the only option. Certainly food supplies could have been purchased from other others who - unlike America - were happy to deal in Sterling rather than dollars or gold.
《租借法案》的重要性也被严重夸大了。英国通过该法案从美国获得了价值310亿美元的物资，但与此同时，英国通过“反向租借法案”向美国提供了近80亿美元的物资支持。即便如此，两者相抵后约230亿美元的净援助额，与英国用美元和黄金在美国的现金采购额，尤其是英国自身的国防开支相比，仍相形见绌。
《租借法案》确实提供了巨大帮助，加速了战争的结束，但即便没有它，英国也不会输掉战争。值得一提的是，英国接受美国援助并从美国采购物资，是因为这些资源触手可及，而非别无选择。英国完全可以从其他国家购买粮食，这些国家不像美国那样只接受美元或黄金结算，而是乐于接受英镑交易。
So what all this means German is stuck between the Soviets in the east, and much larger British Commonwealth forces in the west. Whether that means fighting in all the same theatres is debatable (e.g. invading Italy first), but there would still have been a D-Day, maybe in 1945 rather than 1944. And rather than the two British beaches, one Canadian beach, and two American beaches we actually got, it may well have been two British beaches, one Canadian, one Indian, and one ANZAC.
综上所述，德国将陷入腹背受敌的困境：东线是苏联军队，西线则是规模更为庞大的英联邦军队。至于具体的作战战场是否与历史一致（例如是否先入侵意大利），尚有讨论空间，但诺曼底登陆这样的大规模登陆作战依然会发生，只是时间可能会从1944年推迟到1945年。而且登陆的部队构成也会改变，不再是历史上的两个英军登陆点、一个加拿大军队登陆点和两个美军登陆点，而可能变为两个英军登陆点、一个加拿大军队登陆点、一个印度军队登陆点和一个澳新军团登陆点。
Austin Moseley
奥斯汀·莫斯利
Originally Answered: Hypothetical Scenarios: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European Theater of WWII but still fought Japan?
原问题：假设场景：如果美国没有参与二战欧洲战场，但仍与日本作战，结局会怎样？
Without Lend Lease to the Russians via Iran or Torch - landings in Africa and then Sicily, Germany would have won.
Germany would have taken Cairo and then the Canal. The Russians would not have had the logistics tail to stop Case Blue.
如果没有通过伊朗向苏联提供的租借援助，也没有“火炬行动”——即登陆非洲随后进军西西里岛的作战计划，德国将会赢得战争。
德军将会攻占开罗，进而控制苏伊士运河。而苏联将缺乏足够的后勤补给能力，无法阻止德军的“蓝色行动”。
An interesting treatment of WWII is to look at true joint operations with Japan and Germany. Had Japan just attacked European militaries in the far East and ignored the US, it would have been hard for Roosevelt to get past the isolationists. Had Japan focused on splitting the Raj from the UK and isolating Australia, then it could have pushed on to Iran and then the Suez. And had Japan maintained the pressure on the Russians but carefully managed the losses, then the Russians could not have taken all the forces from the West.
探讨二战的一个有趣角度，是设想德国与日本真正实现联合作战。如果日本只攻击远东地区的欧洲军队，而不招惹美国，罗斯福总统将很难说服孤立主义者同意参战。如果日本专注于将印度从英国殖民统治中分裂出去，并孤立澳大利亚，那么它就可以进一步推进至伊朗，进而打通苏伊士运河。如果日本同时持续对苏联施加压力，又能谨慎控制自身损失，那么苏联就无法将部署在远东的部队全部调往西线战场。
Key decisive points:
关键的决定性因素包括：
Prevent Lend Lease to the Russians by keeping the US out as long as possible.
Remove the UK from SE and South Asia thus removing resources from the Allies and prevent them from supplying Russia.
Keep the US out of the European theater of war.
Take the Suez Canal and lix up with the IJN in the Red Sea.
Threaten Russia in the Far East with minor operations to tie down Soviet Armies stationed there.
1. 尽可能阻止美国参战，切断对苏联的租借援助；
2. 将英国逐出东南亚和南亚，剥夺盟军的资源补给地，使其无法向苏联提供支援；
3. 阻止美国介入欧洲战场；
4. 夺取苏伊士运河，与日本海军在红海实现会师；
5. 通过小规模军事行动在远东地区牵制苏联驻军，对苏联形成战略威慑。
Jon Hornbostel
乔恩·霍恩博斯特尔
Originally Answered: Hypothetical Scenarios: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European Theater of WWII but still fought Japan?
原问题：假设场景：如果美国没有参与二战欧洲战场，但仍与日本作战，结局会怎样？
This answer addresses the European portion of the question. Germany would have had considerably more resources to fight the Soviet unx after 1941, since only the British would be bombing Germany, and the British would have had fewer resources to do so. Even though the Strategic Bombing Survey suggested that the US bombing of the Axis powers was not as effective as it was hoped to be, it still tied up huge quantities of German resources (anti-aircraft guns, fighter aircraft, personnel, productive capacity, valuable metals, petro-chemicals for materials, lubricants, and fuels) and disrupted production and transportation.
本回答将聚焦问题的欧洲战场部分。1941年后，德国将拥有更多资源用于对抗苏联，因为届时只有英国会对德国实施轰炸，而英国的轰炸资源相对有限。尽管战略轰炸调查显示，美国对轴心国的轰炸效果并未达到预期，但这些轰炸仍牵制了德国大量资源——包括高射炮、战斗机、作战人员、生产能力、稀有金属、用于生产材料的石油化工产品、润滑剂和燃料等，同时还严重扰乱了德国的生产和运输。
The Soviet unx would have had fewer resources (especially motor vehicles; the US sent 450,000 to the Soviets during the war). This would have led to a much more drawn-out conflict, but the Soviets would have been victorious;
the only chance the Germans really had to defeat the Soviet unx was in 1941 before the US entered the war.
苏联获得的资源也会相应减少，尤其是机动车辆，战争期间美国向苏联提供了45万辆汽车。这将导致苏德战争的持续时间大幅延长，但苏联最终仍会取得胜利。德国击败苏联的唯一机会其实是在1941年美国参战之前。
Would there have been time and resources for the Germans to fully develop and produce their proposed secret weapons on a war-winning scale? That's the ultimate question, but I don't think it would have been enough to overcome the huge problems the Germans experienced in Russia: logistics nightmares (poor roads, bad weather, huge distances, guerillas behind the lines), and inadequate tanks and men to match the Soviets on the field of battle. The Soviets would have occupied a much larger portion of Europe when the war ended, leaving millions more living under Communism.
那么，德国是否有足够的时间和资源，将其研发的秘密武器大规模投入生产并改变战局呢？这是关键问题，但我认为，即便如此也不足以克服德军在苏联面临的巨大困境：糟糕的后勤保障（路况恶劣、天气恶劣、战线过长、后方游击队袭扰），以及在战场上与苏军对抗时坦克和兵力的不足。战争结束时，苏联将占领欧洲更大的区域，数百万民众将生活在共产主义制度之下。
Paul Marks
Lives in Kettering, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
保罗·马克斯
现居英国北安普敦郡凯特林
Originally Answered: What would have happened if the United States hadn't fought in Europe during WWII?
The question depends on whether the United States had done nothing - sent no aid to the Britain and the Soviet unx, or just not “fought” (actually sent soldiers into Europe).
原问题：如果美国没有在二战欧洲战场作战，会发生什么？
这个问题的答案取决于美国是完全不作为——即不向英国和苏联提供任何援助，还是仅仅不直接“参战”（即不向欧洲派遣地面部队）。
If the United States had done nothing at all then Nazi Germany would have won World War II - Britain would have collapsed in 1940 without American aid (“Lend Lease” and so on). And the Soviet unx would have collapsed after the German invasion of 1941 without Western (mainly American - but some British as well) aid. Even the trucks the Soviets used for transport were mostly American. And the Spitfires earmarked for Singapore were sent to the Soviet unx instead - this helped lead to the collapse of the British in the Far East when the Japanese attacked. Thousands of Allied sailors risked (and lost) their lives getting aid to the Soviet unx.
如果美国完全不作为，纳粹德国将会赢得二战。1940年的英国如果没有美国的援助（如《租借法案》等），就会崩溃。1941年德国入侵苏联后，如果没有西方（主要是美国，也包括部分英国）的援助，苏联也会走向覆灭。甚至苏联用于运输的卡车，大部分都是美国制造的。原本计划部署在新加坡的喷火战斗机被转而送往苏联，这也是日军进攻时英国在远东战场溃败的原因之一。成千上万的盟军水手为了向苏联运送援助物资，冒着生命危险，甚至付出了生命代价。
However, if the United States had continued to send aid and had just not sent soldiers of its own, the result would have been quite different. If the United States had continued to back the Soviet unx against Nazi German then, eventually, the Soviet unx would have crushed Germany and taken over Europe - all of mainland Europe (not just Eastern Europe). It is hard to see how Britain could have survived as an independent nation with ALL of mainland Europe under the control of the Soviet unx.
但如果美国继续提供援助，只是不派遣本国士兵参战，结果将会截然不同。如果美国继续支持苏联对抗纳粹德国，苏联最终会击败德国并占领整个欧洲大陆——而不仅仅是东欧。如果整个欧洲大陆都处于苏联的控制之下，英国很难作为一个独立国家存续下去。
Tom Au Amateur Historian, World War II Buff
汤姆·欧
业余历史学家，二战爱好者
Originally Answered: Hypothetical Scenarios: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European Theater of WWII but still fought Japan?
The Allies still would have won.
原问题：假设场景：如果美国没有参与二战欧洲战场，但仍与日本作战，结局会怎样？
盟军依然会取得胜利。
Germany did not have enough power to defeat both Britain and the Soviet unx by herself. In order to win the war, she needed Japan to stab Britain in the back (through India and the Middle East) and the Soviet unx through Siberia.
德国没有足够的实力同时击败英国和苏联。要想赢得战争，德国需要日本从背后牵制英国（通过入侵印度和中东地区），并从西伯利亚方向牵制苏联。
The U.S. entry into the war against Japan ensured that these scenarios would not have happened. The U.S. could have invaded Japan directly and won, of course, by 1945 if it had no commitments elsewhere. But a roundabout way of winning would be to liberate China in late 1943 or early 1944, and use that country’s manpower to 1) defend India and 2) help invade Japan, saving American lives.
美国对日参战，确保了上述情况不会发生。如果美国没有其他战场的牵制，到1945年完全可以直接入侵日本并取得胜利。不过，还有一种更迂回的取胜策略：在1943年末或1944年初解放中国，利用中国的人力完成两项任务——一是保卫印度，二是协助进攻日本，从而减少美军的伤亡。
With the U.S. fighting Japan, Britain and the Soviet unx would probably have beaten Germany on their own. But even assuming an improbable worst-case scenario where Germany beats the other two, a coalition of the U.S. Japan, China, India and Australasia could have waged and won a Cold War against a German-occupied Europe including Britain and Russia.
由于美国牵制了日本，英国和苏联很可能仅凭自身力量就能击败德国。但即便假设出现最不可能的最坏情况——德国击败了英国和苏联，美国、中国、印度和澳大拉西亚国家组成的联盟，也能够对被德国占领的欧洲（包括英国和苏联）发起并赢得冷战。
David Fred
Dedicated amateur historian. 160 books, and 100 web sources.
戴维·弗雷德
资深业余历史学家，研读160部专著及100份网络资料
Originally Answered: How would the world be different if the USA did not intervene on behalf of Europe during WW 2?
The whole of Europe, with the possible exception of Britain, would be called the USSR, up until the collapse of the Soviet unx, anyway.
原问题：如果美国在二战期间没有为欧洲提供援助，世界会有何不同？
除英国可能得以幸免外，整个欧洲都将成为苏联的一部分，这种局面至少会持续到苏联解体。
US materiel would be most missed, but I think ultimately the USSR could have beaten Hitler on their own. By D-Day, the Soviets controlled the war, and had since Kursk in July 1943.
It would have meant a longer war, with even more Soviet deaths, but after Kursk, It was over.
美国的物资援助确实至关重要，但我认为苏联最终仍能独自击败希特勒。到诺曼底登陆时，战争的主动权已完全掌握在苏联手中，而这一局面自1943年7月的库尔斯克战役后就已形成。
这意味着战争会持续更久，苏联也将付出更为惨重的伤亡代价，但库尔斯克战役之后，纳粹德国的败局就已注定。
But remember, US “intervention” was a result of Hitler’s idiotic declaration of war on the US immediately following Pearl Harbor. Had he not done that, the American Public may have demanded that we fight our war with Japan first.
But even without that stupid move, the US would always intervene in Europe. At some point, even without Pearl Harbor, we would have come in on Britain’s side, just as the Commonwealth nations will always support her.
但要记住，美国的“介入”源于希特勒在珍珠港事件后对美宣战的愚蠢决定。如果他没有这样做，美国民众很可能会要求政府先集中精力与日本作战。
不过，即便希特勒没有做出这一愚蠢举动，美国最终也会介入欧洲战事。即便没有珍珠港事件，美国迟早也会站在英国一边参战，就像英联邦国家总会支持英国一样。
Jian Yang
杨健
Originally Answered: Hypothetical Scenarios: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European Theater of WWII but still fought Japan?
原问题：假设场景：如果美国没有参与二战欧洲战场，但仍与日本作战，结局会怎样？
A lot of people seem to believe that the Soviets would have come out on top no matter what but without material aid from the US, it seems more likely that the Nazis would have pushed into Moscow and beyond. Keep in mind that the Soviets was able to produce so much war material precisely because America supplied it with everything else. It's not hard to imagine that without American aid, the Soviet armies would have been much less effective at resisting the Nazi advance.
很多人认为苏联无论如何都会取得最终胜利，但如果没有美国的物资援助，纳粹德军很可能会攻入莫斯科，并继续向东推进。要知道，苏联之所以能够生产出大量战争物资，正是因为美国为其提供了各类生产所需的资源。不难想象，没有美国的援助，苏联军队抵抗纳粹进攻的效率会大打折扣。
In my opinion, the Nazi advance will stall and stop as they march closer to Siberia but with their major population and industrial centres in the hands of the enemy, the Soviets will not be able to mount an effective counter-attack to push them out of Russia. The Nazis will have won the war in all but name (since the Russians and the British will not have given up), but their victory will not be long-lasting as partisan movements grow in strength in their vast occupied territories.
在我看来，纳粹德军的推进在接近西伯利亚时会陷入停滞并最终停止，但由于苏联的主要人口和工业中心都已落入敌手，苏联将无力组织有效的反攻以将德军逐出本土。此时的纳粹德国虽未彻底迫使苏联和英国投降，但实际上已经赢得了战争。不过，这种胜利不会长久，因为在其广袤的占领区内，游击运动将日益壮大。
The Pacific Theatre will play out quicker and bloodier than originally.
A quicker campaign in the Pacific will not necessitate a quicker delivery of the atomic bombs. Furthermore, with no fear of an invasion from the Soviet unx pressing down on them, Japan’s defeat will probably necessitate an invasion of the home islands, causing casualties in the millions.
与此同时，太平洋战场的战事会比历史上更快、更血腥地结束。但太平洋战争的加速并不意味着原子弹会更早投入使用，恰恰相反，由于日本无需担忧苏联的军事压力，美国要想击败日本，很可能需要直接登陆其本土，这将导致数百万人的伤亡。
Katja Bergman
Software Developer
卡佳·伯格曼
软件开发者
Originally Answered: Hypothetical Scenarios: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European Theater of WWII but still fought Japan?
原问题：假设场景：如果美国没有参与二战欧洲战场，但仍与日本作战，结局会怎样？
The USA was involved in WWII because it was also involved during the first WW. But the USA was neutral since 1937 with the exception of supplying the British, Russia and China with War Material so these countries could keep fighting. (Lend-Lease) The US also imposed economic sanctions against Japan, which were reasonably successful. It pressed Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor. US troops were also deployed in Iceland, so the British invasion force of Iceland could withdraw.
美国之所以卷入二战，与其参与一战的历史背景息息相关。1937年以来，美国表面上保持中立，实则通过《租借法案》向英国、苏联和中国提供战争物资，帮助这些国家继续抵抗。美国还对日本实施了经济制裁，且制裁效果显著，最终迫使日本铤而走险偷袭珍珠港。此外，美国还曾向冰岛派驻军队，使英国驻冰岛的占领军得以撤离。
So, if the USA had not been involved then that would mean that they would not have sent War material to the allied forces. Russia, Britain and China would have fallen and the Axis would have control over the European continent and have a major land-bridge through Asia to Japan, so Japan could receive plenty of supplies from Germany. Mostly oil, steel and certain chemicals.
因此，如果美国完全不介入二战，就意味着它不会向盟军提供任何战争物资。那么苏联、英国和中国都将战败，轴心国将控制整个欧洲大陆，并建立起一条贯穿亚洲的大陆运输通道，日本将能从德国获得大量物资补给，主要包括石油、钢铁和各类化学制品。
Japan would then focus on the conquest of Australia while Germany would focus on the Arab peninsula. The Italians would concentrate on Africa. And all three would focus on Russia and China, probably exterminating the Russian and Chinese population or bringing them down as cheap slave labor.
Chances are that the USA would not have been involved in any of the conflicts it is had stayed neutral, but it also meant that the USA would become isolated as the Axis would capture much of the World.
届时，日本将集中力量征服澳大利亚，德国会专注于占领阿拉伯半岛，意大利则会将重心放在非洲战场。与此同时，德意日三国会联手进攻苏联和中国，很可能会对俄罗斯和中国民众进行种族灭绝，或将他们贬为廉价的奴隶劳工。
如果美国始终保持中立，或许不会卷入任何冲突，但随着轴心国控制世界大部分地区，美国也将陷入孤立无援的境地。
Also important to realize is that Germany would have been the first to create nuclear weapons, not the USA. Germany would have had more resources for the required research. Germany would also be more technologically advanced, especially with computers. plankalkül was a German programming language created between 1943 and 1945 and since the War would have gone differently, it could have become a major programming language. No FORTRAN, COBOL or C, but German programming languages!
同样值得注意的是，德国将成为世界上首个拥有核武器的国家，而非美国。德国将拥有更多资源投入核研究，其科技水平也会更为先进，尤其是在计算机领域。普兰考克语（plankalkül）是德国人在1943至1945年间发明的编程语言，如果战争走向不同，它很可能成为主流编程语言。那样的话，如今我们使用的就不会是FORTRAN、COBOL或C语言，而是德国的编程语言了。
You could wonder how long the USA could stay outside the War. The attack on Pearl Harbor would not have been required for the Japanese since the USA wasn’t hostile. The attack only happened because the USA supplied the Chinese with various weapons and other material. You could wonder if the Axis would stop once they controlled Europe, Asia, Australia and Africa. But since they were basically destroying the local populations for their own “lebensraum”, they would not have any need for the American continents.
或许有人会问，美国能在战争之外保持多久的中立？如果美国没有对日本采取敌对态度，日本就没有必要偷袭珍珠港。事实上，珍珠港事件的爆发，正是因为美国向中国提供了各类武器和物资支持。有人可能会疑惑，当轴心国控制了欧洲、亚洲、澳大利亚和非洲后，是否会停止扩张？但考虑到他们的本质是通过消灭当地人口来掠夺“生存空间”，他们其实并不需要美洲大陆。
Thing is, the USA had already been involved in WWII before it actually started. The Americans were already against Germany and against Japan. Most Americans supported the Lend-Lease plan and supported War against the Axis, even without knowing what actually happened in Europe. Many Americans even volunteered to fight in Europe before the USA officially entered the war. They often changed their nationality to Canadian to do so, though. It was illegal for American citizens to fight for a foreign armed force. (It still is!)
但事实是，美国在正式参战前就已经深度介入了二战。当时的美国民众普遍对德国和日本抱有敌意，大多数人支持《租借法案》，支持对轴心国开战，即便他们并不完全了解欧洲战场的真实情况。在美国正式参战前，许多美国人甚至自愿前往欧洲作战，不过他们常常会先加入加拿大国籍，因为美国法律禁止公民为外国武装力量效力，这一规定至今仍然有效。
All the support the USA provided to the allied forces forced Japan to attack Pearl Harbor so shipments to China could be stopped. And Germany declared war to the USA because it recognized that the USA wasn’t as neutral as it claimed to be.
美国向盟军提供的各类支持，最终迫使日本发动了珍珠港袭击，以期切断美国对中国的物资供应。而德国之所以对美国宣战，也是因为它看清了美国所谓的“中立”不过是伪装而已。
Jacob Bunker
I am an American
雅各布·邦克 美国公民
Originally Answered: Hypothetical Scenarios: What would have been the outcome had the U.S. not gotten involved in the European Theater of WWII but still fought Japan?
原问题：假设场景：如果美国没有参与二战欧洲战场，但仍与日本作战，结局会怎样？
If the American’s hadn’t intervened, but had still materially supported the Soviet unx, then the war would have likely lasted several years longer but would have resulted in a victory for the Soviet unx. Western Europe would likely fallen under Soviet control.
如果美国不直接介入欧洲战场，但仍向苏联提供物资支持，那么战争很可能会持续更久，但最终仍会以苏联的胜利告终，西欧也可能会落入苏联的掌控之中。
Claims that the Soviet unx could have won on their own simply because of the number of casualties they inflicted and suffered in the war are baseless. The number of people you have to mobilize only matters if you have equipment to arm them with, parts to keep their planes and tanks running, shells to give them artillery support, and supplies to keep them fed and clothed. The colonial era is chock full of examples of vastly outnumbered technologically advanced armies laying waste to their enemies.
那种仅仅因为苏联在战争中造成并承受了巨大伤亡，就认为苏联能够独自获胜的说法是站不住脚的。兵力规模的优势只有在具备相应装备的前提下才有意义——士兵需要武器武装，战机和坦克需要零件维持运转，炮兵需要炮弹提供支援，军队需要物资保障衣食补给。殖民时代有无数这样的例子：人数处于绝对劣势但技术先进的军队，能够将数量庞大的敌军彻底击溃。
If the United States had completely ignored the European theater, forgone any lend-lease of materials, and perhaps even maintained a free-trade policy with Germany, then the outcome of the war could have changed dramatically.
However it would be strange to see an American policy that went as far as to embargo Japan (which is what put them on the path to the Pearl Harbor attack) but that ignored the Axis in Europe.
如果美国完全无视欧洲战场，放弃任何形式的租借物资援助，甚至可能与德国保持自由贸易政策，那么战争的结局可能会发生巨大改变。
不过，美国如果采取这样的政策——即对日本实施严厉禁运（正是这一政策将日本推向了偷袭珍珠港的道路），却对欧洲的轴心国置之不理，那将是非常反常的。
很赞 3
收藏