US stays neutral in WW2

Jul 2008
65
ARSENAL OF DEMOCRACY
#31
Re: US stays neutral

theres no way we could have taken on Hitler without Russia and Britain (yes I may be American, but I recognize that the Russians bore the brunt of the European fighting)

I think the US would have supplied weapons to either side in this scenario. Like it or not, we had dealings with all of them and we are well known for weapons dealing since world war 1.
 
Jul 2007
9,098
Canada
#32
Re: US stays neutral

After the Battle of Britain, Hitler had no way of invading the UK - air superiority was no longer possible and therefore there was no way of making a succesful cross-Channel assault. Diverting resources from the Eastern Front to do so would also have been disastrous.

Russia had the manpower and the industrial production to eventually steamroll Germany, it just would have taken longer. Germany's ability to fight a longer war than it actually did was negligible, because of its manpower limitations and the many resources (rubber, oil) it did not possess, could not acquire, and could not meet sufficiently with synthetic alternatives.

The possibility exists that the costs of war would have been so high that a peace might have been signed leaving Hitler in control of most of Europe ... but he really didn't stand a chance to acquire anything in Africa or to hold on to his gains in the Soviet Union, whether America arrived or not.

The bigger danger of no American involvement is in Asia. Clearly, China and Britain could not hold out against the Japanese alone. Japan would have swarmed the Pacific and I suspect that Australia, most of China, Indochina, and India would all be taken by the Japanese. Perhaps they would have even taken the Middle East and Africa.
 

Similar History Discussions