Did the US save Europe in WW2?

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by renrich

I would like to hear from some of you what you think the consequences would have been if the US wasn't involved in WW2 and Nazi Germany had nuclear bombs in 1946-47.

There wouldn't be an Israel ,Stalingrad would have a glassy surface and so on

[plan_D]

Given realistic situations where Japan still attacks the U.S, forcing the U.S into the Pacific war thus freeing up British troops that would have otherwise had to be diverted to the Far East - the British & Commonwealth and U.S.S.R alliance would have eventually defeated Germany.

Timshatz has actually hit the nail on the head; there's no dead certainty as to what would have really happened. There's only an idea which could be way off for everyone, and anyone. And Britain is part of Europe, as much as we hate to be so. Instantly, you've changed the argument from Europe to Continental Europe. Which kind of makes me making a point ... really pointless - because I think the idea of "America saving Britain" being a load of crap and don't care about Continental Europe.

Given the fact that syscom has accepted a continuation of lend-lease then the Soviet Union retains the supplies given to it by the U.S.A during World War II - meaning the efforts on the Eastern Front would have been a replica of true to life.
The airwar over Great Britain and North-West Europe would have been an exact replica until late 1942 when U.S air forces began albeit slowly to make a difference in weight of attack. This meant that the RAF was on the offensive in European skies - which lays the way for the offensive on the ground which was being achieved in North Africa ... and, even given U.S lend-lease (as syscom has stated), there would be a victory there as Operation Torch was only a mild component of the victory - it was all for the British 8th Army.

For "lack of manpower" - the British Empire & Commonwealth had more people than the U.S or Germany for the war effort. The need to train and equip them simply means the war would have dragged on longer.

Britain would have been pounding away at German targets longer; and as the war developed the means to hit these targets with greater weight and precision would have been developed. Meaning the German oil refineries and production plants would have been suffering Grand Slam strikes before 1945 was out.

And for the nuclear bomb ... no. British intelligence knew all about any German nuclear bomb plans and it would have been shut down. Plus if the U.S were not there to develop the weapon, Britain would have put resources into it. Since Britain was in the early idea stage before the war and handed all the information to the U.S.

[Emac44]

Originally Posted by syscom3

EMAC, I think a war between Japan and Russia would end up in a Japanese defeat, with little change in the situation in the east

The IJA was strictly light infantry. And its tanks and artillery found to be "wanting" in many ascpects.

Maybe so Sys but it would still have been a 2 front war if this border problems had esculated to full blown war. Finland didn't have an overall advantage of mechanized equipment either in 1939 yet had defeated Russian Troops with little they did have until overwhelming numbers of USSR Troops swung the war into Russia's favour. And considering that given USSR capability was curtailed by Stalin Himself on the Red Army as seen not only in the Finnish War but also in Operation Barbarosa and earlier stages of those battles where Russian Mechanized Armour suffered badly due to operational command having been eliminated earlier by Stalin. To demiss the IJA Sys so easily as you have done is understandable to your way of thinking but I added this variables as there are other effecting situations that could have possibley occured.


And I did include with those other variables and scenerios that if Mussolini had decided to remain neutral like that of Franco's Spain and the Axis hadn't developed as such of WW2 how would this have effected Germany with no Italy in North Africa or the need for an Afrika Corp as Germany wasn't capable of invading England let alone invading North African Coast to insert Afrika Corps. Germany on her own had limitations as well Sys and did require her own Allies in the Axis. It wasn't all Germany during WW2. For me I am just expounding further into your set scene scenerio

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by plan_D

Given realistic situations where Japan still attacks the U.S, forcing the U.S into the Pacific war thus freeing up British troops that would have otherwise had to be diverted to the Far East - the British & Commonwealth and U.S.S.R alliance would have eventually defeated Germany.

Not so fast..... just because you had forces in Asia doesnt mean they were equiped for or in numbers necessary for them to be fighting in Europe.

Under no circumstance, could I see extensive US forces fighting in the CBI. Even in 1942, there were quite a few Americans and govt officials that saw no reason to fight for British colonial purposes.

Timshatz has actually hit the nail on the head; there's no dead certainty as to what would have really happened. There's only an idea which could be way off for everyone, and anyone. And Britain is part of Europe, as much as we hate to be so. Instantly, you've changed the argument from Europe to Continental Europe. Which kind of makes me making a point ... really pointless - because I think the idea of "America saving Britain" being a load of crap and don't care about Continental Europe.

There is no evidence that the UK had the resources necessary to defeat the Germans alone. Fact is, it was US industrial suprememcy and manpower that tipped the scales in favor of the allies. Like I said, only the USSR had the capacity to defeat the Germans, and even untill 1944, that was not a given.

Given the fact that syscom has accepted a continuation of lend-lease then the Soviet Union retains the supplies given to it by the U.S.A during World War II - meaning the efforts on the Eastern Front would have been a replica of true to life.

Lend Lease helped to a point. And if the US was not going to fight in Europe, all convoys would be manned by british ships and men. And that meant the Atlantic was going to be stretched to the breaking point. It was also the US/British forces fighting in the Med in 1942 that tied up the Germans to some degree.

The airwar over Great Britain and North-West Europe would have been an exact replica until late 1942 when U.S air forces began albeit slowly to make a difference in weight of attack. This meant that the RAF was on the offensive in European skies - which lays the way for the offensive on the ground which was being achieved in North Africa ... and, even given U.S lend-lease (as syscom has stated), there would be a victory there as Operation Torch was only a mild component of the victory - it was all for the British 8th Army.

The RAF did a fine job in 1942 and for 1/2 of 1943..... but untill the P38's and P51's went deep into Germany, the RAF was not contributing to the attrition of the LW.

For "lack of manpower" - the British Empire & Commonwealth had more people than the U.S or Germany for the war effort. The need to train and equip them simply means the war would have dragged on longer.

Not true. WW2 was a technical/industrial war. You had lots of bodies from your colonies, but they were mostly illiterate, and of dubious loyalties. And then how are you going to train them, equip them and get them to the battlefront before Germany advances even further in its technological adavantages?

Britain would have been pounding away at German targets longer; and as the war developed the means to hit these targets with greater weight and precision would have been developed. Meaning the German oil refineries and production plants would have been suffering Grand Slam strikes before 1945 was out.

Untill you defeated the LW, then your bombers were going to take ever increasing loss's, to the point you could not make good the losses.

And for the nuclear bomb ... no. British intelligence knew all about any German nuclear bomb plans and it would have been shut down. Plus if the U.S were not there to develop the weapon, Britain would have put resources into it. Since Britain was in the early idea stage before the war and handed all the information to the U.S.

Germany developing an atomic bomb is problematic. One thing for sure though.... Only the US had the industrial and scientific capacity to develope it on our own (yes I know the contributions from the Brit scientists).

[plan_D]

I'm not saying that the U.S would move into the CBI - the U.S made little contribution to the CBI theatre as it was. My comment was made to point out that Britain would not need to bolster the CBI theatre as Japan would be fighting the U.S in the PTO just like what historically occured.

Great Britain alone did not have the resources to fight Germany; but Great Britain, her Empire and her Commonwealth did. Canada alone would have kept Britain supplied; you under-estimate the power of the British Commonwealth in the 1940s. There is no evidence that the British Commonwealth didn't have the industrial capacity to defeat Germany; it's all over-shadowed by the U.S industry. But the fact remains that Britain and her Commonwealth out-produced Germany.

British and Commonwealth men and ships would man the Atlantic convoys; that's a lot of men. The Med would have been won without the U.S additional strength - the U.S presence just made it easier.

The RAF did a fine job throughout the entirety of the war, while losing a lot we maintained the pressure and more importantly the offensive. The RAF bombed by day and night; it was only the lack of effective equipment that prevented a better result. Unfortunately the British lacked the foresight to introduce the Mosquito in 1940. But even so, the British bombing campaign was extensive and the Luftwaffe was feeling it from the Eastern and Western fronts. The RAF hit Cologne before America was even in the war; is that deep enough into Germany for you?

That whole "dubious loyalties" is crap, sorry. The colonies and Commonwealth were going to fight; they continue to say now that they'd have fought on and on to victory under the Union Jack. There were plenty of bodies; which as I said would take time training and equipping but it would have been done. Germany was not so far advanced over Britain in the most important area which is the air, so Britain and Germany would just be maintaining an equal balance.

The British and her Commonwealth would maintain the losses a lot longer than the Germans - especially since they'd be fighting on the Eastern Front too. With the development of better strike platforms and better weapons themselves, the German industry would feel the payloads in ever increasing numbers with more devestating accuracy. The RAF would cripple the Axis industry ... and win the war.

In real terms, the Allies didn't need to collapse the Axis industry but it could have been done.

[Emac44]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Not so fast..... just because you had forces in Asia doesnt mean they were equiped for or in numbers necessary for them to be fighting in Europe.

Under no circumstance, could I see extensive US forces fighting in the CBI. Even in 1942, there were quite a few Americans and govt officials that saw no reason to fight for British colonial purposes.



There is no evidence that the UK had the resources necessary to defeat the Germans alone. Fact is, it was US industrial suprememcy and manpower that tipped the scales in favor of the allies. Like I said, only the USSR had the capacity to defeat the Germans, and even untill 1944, that was not a given.



Lend Lease helped to a point. And if the US was not going to fight in Europe, all convoys would be manned by british ships and men. And that meant the Atlantic was going to be stretched to the breaking point. It was also the US/British forces fighting in the Med in 1942 that tied up the Germans to some degree.



The RAF did a fine job in 1942 and for 1/2 of 1943..... but untill the P38's and P51's went deep into Germany, the RAF was not contributing to the attrition of the LW.



Not true. WW2 was a technical/industrial war. You had lots of bodies from your colonies, but they were mostly illiterate, and of dubious loyalties. And then how are you going to train them, equip them and get them to the battlefront before Germany advances even further in its technological adavantages?




Untill you defeated the LW, then your bombers were going to take ever increasing loss's, to the point you could not make good the losses.



Germany developing an atomic bomb is problematic. One thing for sure though.... Only the US had the industrial and scientific capacity to develope it on our own (yes I know the contributions from the Brit scientists).

Not so fast Sys. This is conjecture only if the US had not entered WW2 when it did. I have purposed several other scenerios to this. One being Japan and you demissed them as light infantry without substantial mechanized support. You didn't take into the scene that Japan had a good Air Force and their troops were excellant in combat. The scene I purposed if the Manchurian situation had blown out to full scale war between USSR and Japan without the added attacks planned by Japan on rest of Asia and Pacific. And that Japan had diverted all her military excluding of her navy but including her naval air wing to Manchuria to fight the Russians what would have been to consquences for Russia fighting full scale war on 2 fronts some 8 to 10,000 miles apart?

And other scenerios i have put forward is that if Italy had remained neutral like that of Spain? How would the Battles in the Mediterrain been conducted and African Campaign without Italy and African Campaign would not have occured and Britain and her Commonwealth would not have had to divert Troops to Africa or the Asian Pacific region if you take into the above mentioned scenerio of Russia/Japan. Would Germany had declared war on Poland with one of her Allies remaining neutral and another busy fighting the Russians. Or again if Japan had obeyed the League of Nations and withdrawn all her Troops from Asia and decided to stay neutral and became less war like as trade for raw materials would have resumed via international trade with US Britian and Japan saw benefits in this at the time? And in same scenerio Russia didn't have a border dispute or war with Japan. How would this effect Germany? 2 of her Major Allies remaining neutral and Germany singled out in Europe for breaches of the Versailles Treaty.

There are many variables to what your thread is purposing Sys and I have thought about this and came up with other possible scenerios of my own besides the US not taking part in WW2 either in Europe or Asia Pacific. Question is Sys would Germany had been secure in herself to have launched attacks on Poland without Italy and Japan as Allies? If USSR had decided no they were not going to split Poland up with Germany but fight Germany right from 1939 if Germany had invaded Poland. Would have Germany engaged with War on Poland if this was the case? And if Germany had invaded Poland, USSR had retaliated and sent troops to aid Poland. England and France declaring War on Germany. And in this scenerio Germany faces war on 2 fronts. One from the East the other from the West in 1939/1940. With France and England crossing the Dutch French and Belguim borders and Russia attacking via Poland.

Your response draw from the situations that did occur Sys in some cases, but without the US in the mix. I am supposing a totally different idea and taking it a few steps further then you have done.


Another thing Sys Commonwealth Troops as you are making out were not all that undisciplined Malay and Indian Troops performed gallantly during WORLD WAR 2 as in the Malay Campaign and defended Singapore later. And Gurhka Troops were known for their tenacity in battle during both WW1 and WW2 and high discipline having been trained by the British Army. Along with the Bengal Lancers and other Indian Regiments. So becareful of demissing Commonwealth Troops so flipantly just because their origins were not exactly Anglo Saxon. Sikhs Hindis Tamils and other Indians made excellent Troops in the British Empire. South Africans New Zealanders Australians and Canadians also had native contingents in their forces as well Sys. For example the Maori Regiments from New Zealand who proved themselves both in WW1 and WW2. And if the above scenerios that I have envisaged had occured these troops would have certainly been used by England with France Russia attacking Germany in 1939/40 scene had played out in my post in paragraph 3. I think Sys you are purely looking at this as an American. Which means of course they are your views on this purposed events and they are neither right or wrong. Just how you envisage it. I on the other hand view it as an Australian and member of the Commonwealth have taken it further and put into it other possible outcomes. one thing Sys I thank you for putting this thread up. Gives me a chance to look at WW2 in another way and put my own ideas and conjectures across to you.

[Emac44]

Originally Posted by plan_D

I'm not saying that the U.S would move into the CBI - the U.S made little contribution to the CBI theatre as it was. My comment was made to point out that Britain would not need to bolster the CBI theatre as Japan would be fighting the U.S in the PTO just like what historically occured.

Great Britain alone did not have the resources to fight Germany; but Great Britain, her Empire and her Commonwealth did. Canada alone would have kept Britain supplied; you under-estimate the power of the British Commonwealth in the 1940s. There is no evidence that the British Commonwealth didn't have the industrial capacity to defeat Germany; it's all over-shadowed by the U.S industry. But the fact remains that Britain and her Commonwealth out-produced Germany.

British and Commonwealth men and ships would man the Atlantic convoys; that's a lot of men. The Med would have been won without the U.S additional strength - the U.S presence just made it easier.

The RAF did a fine job throughout the entirety of the war, while losing a lot we maintained the pressure and more importantly the offensive. The RAF bombed by day and night; it was only the lack of effective equipment that prevented a better result. Unfortunately the British lacked the foresight to introduce the Mosquito in 1940. But even so, the British bombing campaign was extensive and the Luftwaffe was feeling it from the Eastern and Western fronts. The RAF hit Cologne before America was even in the war; is that deep enough into Germany for you?

That whole "dubious loyalties" is crap, sorry. The colonies and Commonwealth were going to fight; they continue to say now that they'd have fought on and on to victory under the Union Jack. There were plenty of bodies; which as I said would take time training and equipping but it would have been done. Germany was not so far advanced over Britain in the most important area which is the air, so Britain and Germany would just be maintaining an equal balance.

The British and her Commonwealth would maintain the losses a lot longer than the Germans - especially since they'd be fighting on the Eastern Front too. With the development of better strike platforms and better weapons themselves, the German industry would feel the payloads in ever increasing numbers with more devestating accuracy. The RAF would cripple the Axis industry ... and win the war.

In real terms, the Allies didn't need to collapse the Axis industry but it could have been done.

I will have to agree with Plan on this Sys in certain areas. The Empire was indeed made up of various people. And you have not taken into consideration that Canada Australia South Africa Malaya India New Zealand etc supplied not only raw material but men and equipment as well. Canada like Plan has said could of maintained England in Food Supplies Raw materials and other services and did so prior to the US joining WW2. And at this time the Italian Navy was virtually destroyed in the Med without the use of the USN to help and was achieved by the Royal Navy and her Commonwealth Navies. And it was British and Commonwealth Forces who defeated the Italians Germans and Vichy French in North Africa and Middle East. Even though the English and Commonwealth Nations had incured losses in Greece and Cyprus Campaigns. Even in this England insured her acess to OIL from the Middle East and kept the Suez Canal opened to the British and Commonwealth Fleets and Merchant Navies. And if the US had not joined in WW2 what makes you believe that the British didn't have the intelligence to conduct a war with the resource of all the Empire at her disposal? The English were not exactly short of brains during and prior to WW2 Sys and had developed weapons systems to their own apart from the US. And as some one has pointed out that England had the ability in science to develop weapons and possible other types of non conventional weapons. You seem to forget Frank Whittle had already developed jet engine technology and that the Gloster Meteor was in production and serving with the RAF in 1944/5. when exactly did the US develop jet aircraft that were beyond testing again Sys?

And as Plan has pointed out Sys the RAF had already delievered strikes into Germany with 1000 Bomber raids into Germany without the aid of the USAAF 8th Air Force. No one is saying that the US being in WW2 wasn't a valued service to the Allied Nations but do not under estimate the English or her then Empire which you seem to be doing Sys. It smacks or arrogance a little Sys

[bomber]

"the U.S made little contribution to the CBI theatre as it was."

And what little contribution they did have backfired on the USA in the end....
Dare I say south Indo China.

The Lend / Lease scheme... I've a question

America staying out of WWII, did the lend/lease scheme drag it's ecomomy out of depression ?

Could it therefor be said that Europe saved America from economic disaster ? and geared up it's industry, making it more capable of responding following the Japanese attack ? and thus saved America from military disaster ?

Simon

[bomber]

Originally Posted by Emac44

Even though the English and Commonwealth Nations ......Even in this England insured her ..... The English were not exactly short of brains .....that England had the ability .....do not under estimate the English

I may be English.. but it's Britain and the British Empire....

Please do the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish a favour and include them...

Simon

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by bomber

"the U.S made little contribution to the CBI theatre as it was."

And what little contribution they did have backfired on the USA in the end....
Dare I say south Indo China.

Irrelevant to this discussion.

America staying out of WWII, did the lend/lease scheme drag it's ecomomy out of depression ?

The thread is if the US stayed out of the war in Europe, not out of WW2. A Japanese attack would have caused the idustrial mobilization of the US to the same effect.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by plan_D

I'm not saying that the U.S would move into the CBI - the U.S made little contribution to the CBI theatre as it was. My comment was made to point out that Britain would not need to bolster the CBI theatre as Japan would be fighting the U.S in the PTO just like what historically occured.

But you would still need to defend Burma and India untill mid 1943 when the US had finally mobilized. And those are forces that would not be available for use in the ETO/MTO, thus relieving pressure on the Germans

Great Britain alone did not have the resources to fight Germany; but Great Britain, her Empire and her Commonwealth did. Canada alone would have kept Britain supplied; you under-estimate the power of the British Commonwealth in the 1940s. There is no evidence that the British Commonwealth didn't have the industrial capacity to defeat Germany; it's all over-shadowed by the U.S industry. But the fact remains that Britain and her Commonwealth out-produced Germany.

Only the UK had the large industrial centers of the empire. Canada's was quite small. Australia's and SA's was non existant. And as events proved, your economy was maxed out by 1943 with a general inability to expand with any large degree.

I simply see no possibility of the British Empire to build the vast numbers of shipping neededto offset the U-boat losses and transport the colonial troops around the world, let alone equip them.

And that doesnt take into account building the armoured forces needed to defeat the Germans in any possible invasion. And then again, there was little possibility for the RAF to quadruple in size and maintain its high degree of proficency. You simply didnt have the manpower or undustrial resources to do it.

British and Commonwealth men and ships would man the Atlantic convoys; that's a lot of men. The Med would have been won without the U.S additional strength - the U.S presence just made it easier.

I never thought the Germans could maintain a presence in Africa.

But again, every sailor you need to man a ship is a man not going to be carrying a rifle or supporting air operations. You simply dont have enough men, period.

The RAF did a fine job throughout the entirety of the war, while losing a lot we maintained the pressure and more importantly the offensive. The RAF bombed by day and night; it was only the lack of effective equipment that prevented a better result. Unfortunately the British lacked the foresight to introduce the Mosquito in 1940. But even so, the British bombing campaign was extensive and the Luftwaffe was feeling it from the Eastern and Western fronts. The RAF hit Cologne before America was even in the war; is that deep enough into Germany for you?

It was the long range 8th AF fighters that brought the fight to the LW. Untill you had long range fighters to chase them from one part of the Reich to the other, then nothing was going to happen to the strength of the LW.

And it was the day/night bombing campaign that caused the German's major problems. Just bombing by night was not going to do much.

That whole "dubious loyalties" is crap, sorry. The colonies and Commonwealth were going to fight; they continue to say now that they'd have fought on and on to victory under the Union Jack. There were plenty of bodies; which as I said would take time training and equipping but it would have been done.

You only have a certein ammount of time before the Germans are so advanced technically, that you cannot invade without taking devestating losses.

Lets face it, the Germans were superior in Tanks, AFV's, infantry weapons, and tactics. They were only defeated by superior allied numbers, most of which was contributed by the US

Germany was not so far advanced over Britain in the most important area which is the air, so Britain and Germany would just be maintaining an equal balance.

Germany was quite advanced in a number of area's.

The British and her Commonwealth would maintain the losses a lot longer than the Germans - especially since they'd be fighting on the Eastern Front too. With the development of better strike platforms and better weapons themselves, the German industry would feel the payloads in ever increasing numbers with more devestating accuracy. The RAF would cripple the Axis industry ... and win the war.

But the RAF didnt cripple the Germans by themselves, it took several thousand US bombers and fighters to help you along.

And without a credible daylight bombing campaign, the German day fighters could e redeployed to the eastern front and make its presence felt.

In real terms, the Allies didn't need to collapse the Axis industry but it could have been done.

Not without the US providing the troops and material(s) to enable an allied win.

End result is still the same...... The Brits will never have the industrial or manpower capacity to invade Germany, Germany will never be able to invade Britain. And its a toss up whether Germany wins in the east, or Russia finally beats Germany through sheer attrition.

[bomber]

Yeh you'd have mobilised but too little too late..... All of the Pacific including Hawawi would be Japanese.. and that includes Australia and New Zealand..

If you pull one thread it all comes undone.

The facts are the Sleeping giant wasn't actually asleep but busy making and selling goods to Britain... which you then diverted to your own armed forces even though Britain had orders placed.

Simon

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by bomber

Yeh you'd have mobilised but too little too late..... All of the Pacific including Hawawi would be Japanese.. and that includes Australia and New Zealand..

What?

The facts are the Sleeping giant wasn't actually asleep but busy making and selling goods to Britain... which you then diverted to your own armed forces even though Britain had orders placed.

You inventing more facts?

The US wasnt mobilized untill 1943 when the full weight of our shipyards and factories began to be felt. And the amazing thing is, the British economy maxed out around that time to, but the US economy never even showed signs of maxing out at all.

[T4.H]

I said German.
OK, perhaps not now any more. It is much more easy to win a war than to control a country, if the people in this country didn`t want (just think of IRAK).
And no one should forget, that Germany was (less or more) bancrupt before the war starts. If the war should have been startet 5 jears later, perhaps WWII would never begun, because the german economy would have been collapsed in between. How we Germans said: They throw out the money out of the window with both hands, to build up there army.

OK, I said German.

Why?

At the end of WWI Great Britain was (less or more) bankrupt.

Because before USA started into the war, Great Britain has had to pay for each screw (and so on), which was transfered from USA to Great Britain.

Between WWI and WWII Great Britain didn`t realy recover from WWI.

At begin of WWII it was the same, they had again to pay for each screw.
In "principle" Great Britain (and the rest of the commenwealth) financated the industrial recovery of the USA.

After short time, UK has lost the war on the continent. They were sitting on there island. OK, they controlled the surface of the atlantic ocean. And without the old american destroyers which they got?
Perhaps they would have lost even this part of the war.
The only thing UK could do were the bombing raids against germany. But these were (less or more) only night bombing raids against big or small towns but not against industrial facilities. What happens if you throw a bomb on a street between two big houses?
both houses were havily damaged or even destroyd.
What happens when you throw a bomb in a big industrial hall?
It makes Booommm.
Some windows were blown out and you have a 10 m hole in the roof but the hall is still standing. And 48 h later the production was restartet.
To totally destroy an industrial facility you have to make a real big and precise bombing raid, this is impossible in night (OK, later with radar on board...). And it is impossible in night raids to totally bomb away a small railway, a railway station a bridge or a street.
Don`t forget, the biggest war production in germany was in the year 1944.
The night bombing raids were devastating the towns and terrorising the civilians. But it was less or more unimportant for earlier finishing the war.

So less or more after Norway, Dunkirk, greece, the british army and british airforce were "unimportant" for germany, they had to sit and to stay on there island and without the transports from USA, the UK would have to capitulate.
The war in africa was not so important for WWII. If you compare this war with the war against russia it was unimportant for germany.

Russia has had another problem. Before the start of the war Stalin kills most of the generals and so on. Less or more they lost there whole army in the western part of russia at the begin of the russian war. They lost whole armys and most of there weapons. They had to transfer there factories from western russia to the eastern parts. But it is not so easy to restart the production of weapons, of trucks and so on.

Without the PQ convoys to russia, the war against russia would have slowly ended in 1942 or 1943.

I have asked some german soldiers, who fought in russia.

They found british aircrafts, they found american aircrafts. They found rifles from Great Britain, ammunition from USA and UK, tinned food from... what do you think? And from where came the fuel?

And much more important, less or more all trucks came from USA and UK. It is nice, if you can produce many tanks.
But, if you can't transport any fuel, ammunition, food and so on...

Perhaps these convoys won the war against germany (of course not alone).