US stays neutral in WW2

#1
Most historians believe that Hitler's decision to invade the USSR is what cost him the war. But the invasion happened before the USA entered the war.

So my question is would Hitler have won if the USA never entered war or would Britian and USSR have still defeated him ?
 
Last edited:
#2
Re: US stays neutral

US wasn't as important in winning the war as the USSR was, that's a fact. And Hitler would've had a bigger chance of winning but no, because the Battle of Stalingrad was the turning point.
 
May 2008
558
#3
Re: US stays neutral

Most historians believe that Hitler's decision to invade the USSR is what cost him the war. But the invasion happened before the USA entered the war.

So my question is would Hitler have won if the USA never entered war or would Britian and USSR have still defeated him ?
That is a good question. Because the US entered the war 2 years after the war started, the US was still fresh and "ready to go" while the other countries fighting were worn out from fighting. I am tempted to believe that Britian would have failed. Without help after the battle of Britian, the British so weakened that without US support, they very well could have fallen to Germany. The USSR I am not so sure. With Hitler's timeing, durning the Russian Winter, I think failure was certain. One question for JHicks: in your hypothetical question, did FDR still do the lend-lease program with Britian?
 
May 2008
558
#4
Re: US stays neutral

US wasn't as important in winning the war as the USSR was, that's a fact. And Hitler would've had a bigger chance of winning but no, because the Battle of Stalingrad was the turning point.
Do you have a source? By the way how is that a fact? Isn't it more of an opinion?
 
Last edited:
#5
Re: US stays neutral

Do you have a source? By the way how is that a fact? Isn't it more of an opinion?
Look at the lives lost, the resources used and the money spent, the territory destroyed.

The USSR was more important in winning the war and it's an insult to say otherwise.

It's like 2 kids working on a tree house and 1 commits a lot more work and resources, but when it's build the other kid claims he worked just as much or even harder.

Don't insult the Russians, all the pain they felt and all the suffering they endures far exceeds the Rich Americans "pain."

edited for inappropriate language
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#6
Re: US stays neutral

That is a good question. Because the US entered the war 2 years after the war started, the US was still fresh and "ready to go" while the other countries fighting were worn out from fighting. I am tempted to believe that Britian would have failed. Without help after the battle of Britian, the British so weakened that without US support, they very well could have fallen to Germany. The USSR I am not so sure. With Hitler's timeing, durning the Russian Winter, I think failure was certain. One question for JHicks: in your hypothetical question, did FDR still do the lend-lease program with Britian?
Yes leand-lease still happens

Just to be clear the reason why the USA stayed out of the war in europe is that Hitler never declared war on the USA
 
May 2008
558
#7
Re: US stays neutral

Just to be clear the reason why the USA stayed out of the war in europe is that Hitler never declared war on the USA
I assume this means pearl harbor is not attacked as well. That was one of the biggest instigators of American involvement.
 
Jan 2008
18,733
Chile, Santiago
#8
Re: US stays neutral

The USSR kept forcing the Germans to surrender or retreat but had more casualties almost every time. So in that sense did they really win their battles? I say no because the only reason they won any of thier battles was because of their superior numbers. Perhaps this may have been different if Stalin wasn't stupid enough to kill his major officers.
 
May 2008
558
#9
Re: US stays neutral

The USSR kept forcing the Germans to surrender or retreat but had more casualties almost every time. So in that sense did they really win their battles? I say no because the only reason they won any of thier battles was because of their superior numbers. Perhaps this may have been different if Stalin wasn't stupid enough to kill his major officers.
And Stalin needed to produce enough weapons for his soldiers. Giving one soldier bullets and the next in line a rifle is not the most efficient method to win a war...not very optomistic eather.
 
#10
Re: US stays neutral

His stupidity was not completely relevant, the same outcome would've occurred, Adolf would've broke through Western Russia and a city like Stalingrad would decide the war again.
 

Similar History Discussions