US stays neutral in WW2

Jun 2008
1,966
India
#21
Re: US stays neutral

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



Russia won because it was America who provided them with most of the resources for transportation nevertheless you have a point the Russians did suffer even records show that Russian POW's were treated more harshly than the Britons or the Americans. But i can guarantee that Germany would have won if Hitler wasn't their leader.
 
Last edited:

avon

Forum Staff
May 2008
14,253
#22
Re: US stays neutral

Russia won because it was America who provided them with most of the resources for transportation nevertheless you have a point the Russians did suffer even records show that Russian POW's were treated more harshly than the Britons or the Americans. But i can guarantee that Germany would have won if Hitler wasn't their leader.
1. The Western Powers actually supplied the USSR with a relatively small proportion of resources. I think the figure is about 15% of the Soviet output (its a strange amount as it seems small but was actually very significant). My point is that it was most certainly not 'most' (or anywhere near it) of the resources for transportation.

2. There is absolutely no way that you can guarantee anything such as what you propose. Had Hitler not been the leader of Germany ... the world of possibilities opens. There can be no such guarantees.

3. Your position dangerously undermines Soviet production capabilities vis-a-vis Germany. Look at Soviet industrialisation/modernisation throughout the 1930s; the amount of materials that Stalin was supplying to Hitler between 1939 and 1941 (materials that actually made the German war-effort a lot easier); Soviet production during the war.
 
Jun 2008
1,966
India
#23
Re: US stays neutral

1. The Western Powers actually supplied the USSR with a relatively small proportion of resources. I think the figure is about 15% of the Soviet output (its a strange amount as it seems small but was actually very significant). My point is that it was most certainly not 'most' (or anywhere near it) of the resources for transportation.

2. There is absolutely no way that you can guarantee anything such as what you propose. Had Hitler not been the leader of Germany ... the world of possibilities opens. There can be no such guarantees.

3. Your position dangerously undermines Soviet production capabilities vis-a-vis Germany. Look at Soviet industrialisation/modernisation throughout the 1930s; the amount of materials that Stalin was supplying to Hitler between 1939 and 1941 (materials that actually made the German war-effort a lot easier); Soviet production during the war.



1. Ok i agree with you on this point i purposefully overexaggerated. However the Russian infantry couldn't move an inch as all, mind you all their trucks were being provided by the Americans.

2. Ok i can't guarantee but i would give 90 percent chances of succes to Germany. I stick strongly to my word on this. Firstly the Russian disaster would never have happened, if it's invasion was ever undertaken which could only be done by expelling the war effort to conquer Britain a thing that they wouldn't do. And if we come to later times D-Day too would never happen.

3. I believe that i need not elaborate on the 'fineness' of the Russian equipment which was even worse than the Germans.
 

avon

Forum Staff
May 2008
14,253
#24
Re: US stays neutral

1. Ok i agree with you on this point i purposefully overexaggerated. However the Russian infantry couldn't move an inch as all, mind you all their trucks were being provided by the Americans.

2. Ok i can't guarantee but i would give 90 percent chances of succes to Germany. I stick strongly to my word on this. Firstly the Russian disaster would never have happened, if it's invasion was ever undertaken which could only be done by expelling the war effort to conquer Britain a thing that they wouldn't do. And if we come to later times D-Day too would never happen.

3. I believe that i need not elaborate on the 'fineness' of the Russian equipment which was even worse than the Germans.
1. Fair point, but ... I'm sure the Soviet Army did have some form of transportation.

2. The vast realm of possibilities that grow when we try to imagine the world without Hitler ... (a.) would there have been a war for Germany to win? (b.) (Assuming there was) the potential invasion of the British Isles was not an undertaking that the German generals were looking forward to, so, I would have to guess that they might have diverted to another (more logical) target. This would most probably have been the USSR, which most of the generals (like Hitler) believed would be easily vanquished; its estimated resources would have made it too attractive a proposition to pass up. So I'm not really willing to concede your 90% in this case - maybe 30-40% (but that's still a maybe).

3. The state of the German equipment varied greatly across the services. If you look at the Ardennes offensive, the surprisingly large number of troops actually crossed the border on horses. Throughout the war, the German troops frequently complained of shortages and inadequate equipment. Although I agree that the Soviets were worse off to begin with, by late 1943-44, the Soviets had turned this around.

Its an interesting proposition. However, in the world of possibilities it is difficult if not impossible to know these things.:rolleyes:
 

avon

Forum Staff
May 2008
14,253
#27
Re: US stays neutral

If America never got involved in the european theater when would the war in europe have ended ?
1945.

Assuming that America was still involved in the Pacific then, with British scientific knowledge, they would have still gone on to develop the Bomb. Given the British assistance with which the initially began its development, there would have been a moral prerogative to offer Britain the benefits of its completion. Germany could then have been nuked in 1945. Purely hypothetical though this thought is.:(
 
#28
Re: US stays neutral

Without getting involved in europe America could have focused its forces on the war with japan

Would America have still dropped the bomb or would America invade japan ?
 
Jun 2008
1,236
United Kingdom
#30
Re: US stays neutral

Without help after the battle of Britian, the British so weakened that without US support, they very well could have fallen to Germany.
I disagree. Hitler diverted his attention away from military targets in Britain following the engagement in Russia. Therefore the RAF could reform and hold out against the diminished German fighters that were being used east in the USSR. Britain couldn't have done much in way of offensives, but as long as she had the RAF, she'd hold out against the Germans. After all, blitzkrieg doesn't work over water!

JHicks said:
If America never got involved in the european theater when would the war in europe have ended ?
The Russians were so close to Berlin that logic would suggest 1945. However, would they have been so successful were it not for the pesky British, Canadians, Americans etc. in France? Hitler could have diverted troops used in the west to the east, and provided he used them, he could have made Barbarossa go so much better.
If the USA wasn't in the European theatre, we can assume that Britain is holed up in her island fighting for her life with the Axis controlling Greater Germany, France, the Low Countries, Norway, Finland, Italy, Greece and much of Eastern Europe. Therefore, she can divert more troops to fighting the Russian horde, and would presumably do much better than she did in "real life".

So I'd say 1946 or maybe even 1947.
 

Similar History Discussions