Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Would The U. S. Have Joined WW II Without Dec. 7th?  
User currently offlineYanksn4 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1404 posts, RR: 11
Posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2372 times:

Greetings everyone. With my U. S. History Honors Class just finishing up World War II, I have this question to ask you guys: Would the United States have joined the war even if the Japanese did not attack Pearl Harbor? Also, should the United States have joined without Pearl Harbor occuring? I ask that everyone please discuss this in a calm matter. My personal opinion is that since we were continually aiding the British, we would have eventually joined the war against Hitler and the Nazis. However, I'm not sure about the Pacific War. Anyway, please discuss.

signed,
Matthew


2013 Airports: EWR, JFK, LGA, LIS, AGP, DEN, GIG, RGN, BKK, LHR, FRA, LAX, SYD, PER, MEL, MCO, MIA, PEK, IAH
34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMdsh00 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4125 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2326 times:

I agree about this too. Because of the Lend-Lease Program, we would have eventually entered WWII. However, I think that there would not be the same patriotic fervor that was present after Pearl Harbor.


"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2322 times:

Perhaps eventually the troops would have gone to Europe. Either at the behest of the UK or Russia or both. Certainly the war would have been shortened IMHO had we not had to deal with the Japanese as well.

As Mdsh00 says, the patriotic fervor might not have been there - I most certainly agree since the US (without Pearl Harbor) would not have been directly attacked.

As for the second question, do you think they should have. Simple answer: Yes. Protracted explanation: Had Germany continued on it's quest to take over Europe and parts of Russia, certainly they would have had to slow to a stop evertually, simple logistics and lack of adequate forces would have caused this. However, as powerful as the jugernaut was in the beginning, there were few countries prepared to deal with its ferocity. Examples include Poland and France. I believe England would have held out, and I only give it a 1 in 10 chance of surrendering to the Germans since that was not Hitler's only battlefield. Eventually the Germans would have faced (and did in fact face) a formidible Russian foe that wore them down. The balance of the European countries were subjugated and IMO of no value militarily to the Russians. The UK could not have beaten the Germans back on their own, even with the assistance of the Russians on the opposite front. So, assistance from US would eventually have to come to break the stale mate.



[Edited 2005-02-19 04:42:25]

User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2300 times:

One reason so many conspiracy theorists think FDR knew about Pearl Harbor is that he had been trying to get the US actively in the war since mid-1940. With Lend-Lease, the US became the "Aresenal of Democracy"; US merchant ships had been torpedoed and sunk long before the US officially entered the fray. The US was an active "non-combatant" long before Pearl Harbor.

So, yes, the US would have eventually entered the war, at least in Europe, even without Pearl Harbor. That was inevitable, since we were moving inexorably in that direction anyway. I am not convinced we would have gone to war in Asia, but even there, I'm forced to conclude that some event would have transpired other than Pearl Harbor to go after the third of the Axis powers.

How much different Europe or Asia might have looked had we not come in till later, is anyone's guess, but the landscape of the world, politically and militarily, at least, might have been a lot different.


User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2287 times:

In April of 1941 a destroyer the USS Rueben James was attacked and sunk in the North Atlantic by a German U Boat. Roosevelt thought that that incident would have lead to war, but the isolationists were still too powerful.

I think that eventually, the US would have been drawn into war with Germany and Japan regardless of Pearl Harbor.

Interestingly, the US didn't declare on Germany, only Japan. Hitler abided by his treaty with Japan (probably the only treaty he honored) and declared war on the US, in reponse to the US declaration on Japan.

For the US the flash point was always in the Pacific. Japanese imperial ambitions came into direct contact with US possesions and interests. Some of those interests were Pan Am routes.

Germany was an ideological war. Tangible, physical US interests in Europe were not to be had. So until German aggression actually threatened the US in a real way and not in simply an academic sense War with Germany would have come much later. Pressure on real US interrests would not really dawn on the American public until after Britain's fall.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2283 times:

Interestingly, the US didn't declare on Germany, only Japan. Hitler abided by his treaty with Japan (probably the only treaty he honored) and declared war on the US, in reponse to the US declaration on Japan.

And to this day, I envision Old Winnie doing backflips and yelling at the top of his lungs when old scrambledbrains Schickelgruber did that.  Big thumbs up


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2280 times:

Quoting UALPHLCS (reply 4):
Pressure on real US interrests would not really dawn on the American public until after Britain's fall.


Do you think the UK would have fallen regardless?

After Hitler began to actively move on the Russian front many of his assets were diverted from the Western to the Eastern front. Futher, there were only so many Germany solders to go around. Eventually, he would have run short on manpower.

He did possess a formidable battle fleet as far as the Navy is concerned, but IMO, his ability to land troops off the continent was much less than adequate. So, coupled with the need to continue to supply aircraft, tanks, trucks and other vehicles to maintain the fight on the Eastern Front with Russia he would have had to develop and put to sea a force capable of crossing the English Channel and landing on the UK.

I suspect he would had met with more of a foe than he did in Poland, France, Belgium, and elsewhere had he attempted to do so.

[Edited 2005-02-19 06:56:23]

User currently offlineYanksn4 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1404 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2273 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (reply 6):
He did possess a formidable battle fleet as far as the Navy is concerned, but IMO, his ability to land troops off the continent was much less than adequate. So, coupled with the need to continue to supply aircraft, tanks, trucks and other vehicles to maintain the fight on the Eastern Front with Russia he would have had to develop and put to sea a force capable of crossing the English Channel and landing on the UK.


In order to land troops onto the British Isles, Hitler constantly bombed ports and other facilities near the coast. His plan was to destroy these defenses and then paratroop German troops into England. However, since he couldn't stop the RAF, Hitler abandoned this plan and set his sights on the Eastern Front.

signed,
Matthew



2013 Airports: EWR, JFK, LGA, LIS, AGP, DEN, GIG, RGN, BKK, LHR, FRA, LAX, SYD, PER, MEL, MCO, MIA, PEK, IAH
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2270 times:

One thing that held Hitler up in actually invading the UK is that he just abhored amphibious operations. He was a "romantic", if you will, that all battles should be fought on terra firma between large armies, and he just didn't care for amphibious maneuvers.

Too bad-he found out in 1944 what amphibious warfare could accomplish, if done in force.

As for the question if I think the UK would have fallen: No, I do not. I think they would have found a way to stave off annihilation until the US finally came into the war.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2265 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (reply 8):
He was a "romantic", if you will, that all battles should be fought on terra firma between large armies, and he just didn't care for amphibious maneuvers.


That's what you get for letting a corporal be in charge . . .  Big thumbs up

Quoting Falcon84 (reply 8):
As for the question if I think the UK would have fallen: No, I do not. I think they would have found a way to stave off annihilation until the US finally came into the war.


Concur


User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2223 times:

I don't think the US public would have gotten behind a European front for the US unless Britain fell.

One could argue that Briain was too tough enough a nut to crack. But If the Germans had kept up te Battle of Britain long enough to gain air superiority, or developed heavy bombers then Britains ability to fend off invasion is in doubt. In other words if Britain DIDN't fall and Germany DIDN'T declare war on the US the US MAY have left Germany alone, and continued simply to supply Britain with arms and moral support.

My point was that the American public was perfectly content to let Hitler be so long as he was only thretening Europe. There was a strong feeling that Europeans had been butchering each other for hundreds of years and there was no reason for the US to involve itself. Ideology along could not sway them. In fact there was a fairly strong American Nazi movement in the US. A huge rally in Madison Square Garden took place before 1939. Charles Lindberg was a public voice who saw that American weapons technology was far inferior to what the German were fielding at the time. Many had no faith that the US could beat the Germans.

ON the other hand, Japan's ambitions and American interests came into direct conflict in the Pacific. There was also a racial superiority complex that American had over the Japanese. The Pacific was considered American and Western territory. The War for the US was always going to start in the Pacific, be it with Pearl Harbor, or some other US interest being atacked. You know Pearl Harbor was not the only US base hit that day. The US was attacked in the Philipeans and the Aleutians as well.


User currently offlineVC10 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1411 posts, RR: 16
Reply 11, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2212 times:

I believe that Hitler was quite content to leave the UK alone , as he believed that the U-Boat offensive would in the end force the UK to sue for peace or starve, and he was not far wrong. The reason was that Britain grew very little food for itself because it built the engineering goods for the Empire and got food in exchange. A great plan until your country is blockaded.

Without lend lease the UK would have been in a terrible state, but do remember that lend lease only came in when the UK had run out of money buying goods from the rest of the world.

It is also interesting to consider that towards the end of ww2 Germany had thoughts of Bombing the USA's east coast and even started to develop a two stage V2 rocket with the range to reach the the USA's east coast, so just aswell,l the war finished when it did.

That's it, staying out of this USA discussion now

Be Happy little vc10


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2211 times:

Quoting VC10 (reply 11):
It is also interesting to consider that towards the end of ww2 Germany had thoughts of Bombing the USA's east coast and even started to develop a two stage V2 rocket with the range to reach the the USA's east coast,


Absolutely right, given another year with the Germans developing these long range bombers (there's a History Channel show highlighting them) America would have been drawn into the war when Germany bombed NYC.

Quoting VC10 (reply 11):
That's it, staying out of this USA discussion now


Please continue to post, your perspective is of great value, especially since you're flying the Union Jack!


User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1720 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2200 times:

As far as war with Germany is concerned, I think that was inevitable. One of the key elements of the German strategy was to isolate the UK with a massive U-boat campaign.

By the end of 1941, that campaign hadn’t really started in earnest. There were submarine attacks, but nothing like the scale of the anti-shipping attacks that began in 1942.

Germany would have had the choice of either forgoing that effort, or including American shipping in those attacks. I don’t think that the United States could remain their neutrality for very long with dozens, or even scores, of ships being lost each month. As others have pointed out, American ships were being sunk, but not in great numbers prior to American entry into the war. I do not think that the US Government or the American people would have tolerated the massive loss of life and property that resulted once the full U-boat campaign started.

As for the Pacific, I think that’s a much harder question because of the challenging logic of suggesting that there even was a Pacific War without a conflict with the United States.

In response to Japanese military adventurism, the US imposed a very effective incremental embargo of oil, steel, and other material against Japan starting in 1939. By the middle of 1941 that embargo threatened the viability of Japan’s military operations in China and Northwest Asia.

The Japanese responded to the embargo with a strategy that was dependant on implementation the “Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere” to provide the raw materials necessary to support their industrial and military capacity. A critical component of that vision was the seizure of the Dutch East Indies to provide oil, rubber, and other important natural resources.

The problem for Japan was that the Philippines, and the huge American military presence there, was right in the middle of their Co-prosperity Sphere astride their lines of communication and supply. It would have been militarily insane for Japan to think they could have occupied Java and Sumatra while leaving the United States in possession of the Philippines.

If Japan really wanted the Co-prosperity Sphere, they knew they must go to war with the United States, so in that sense it was inevitable.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13120 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2169 times:

I would also suggest other reasons that would have led the USA to get involved into WWII even if the Japanese hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor.
One was the need to improve the USA economy out of the Great Depression with the production of armenants, which was underway early in 1940.
We also had a need to help our allies in Europe - almost exclusively the UK and the USSR, as we were doing by early 1940 anyway as without our help, those countries could have fallen earlier and easier without our eventual involvement after Pearl Harbor.
The spread of the war in Europe and Asia also crippled our access to important resources like natural rubber, various critical mineral products and regular trade partners.
Also by late 1941, we were the only real superpower left other than Germany and Japan, so we had an obligation to participate to defend the world and our allies. WWII raised the USA to the level of the superpower and world's policeman that we have become (for better and worse).
There is also the deep moral issue that Japanese and Nazi presented to many Americans, that Axis countries had become a deeply immoral and evil situation and 'God-fearing' Americans believed we had an obligation to prevent it's spread. The isolationist movement only represented a vocal minority, and we still had many problems due to the continuing Great Depression.
Almost all Americans are immigrants by birth or ancestry, mostly from Europe and they clearly knew Germany/Italy Axis powers were hurting the countries of their birth.


User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8292 posts, RR: 23
Reply 15, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2150 times:

It would have been impossible for the US to maintain its isolationist policy. Either US troops were going to Europe and the Pacific or German and Japanese troops were coming here.


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2141 times:

So let me try to synthise everyones answers to the question posed in the original post.

The US was going to be drwn into WWII with or without Pearl harbor. The question when you take out the attack is WHEN.

I think we all agree that the US and Japan would come blows the soonest. The oil embargo made it intevitable that Japan would attack the US for access to oil in what is now Indoneseia.

The remaining question is When would the US be forced to go to war with Germany.

Obviously, Hitler's ambitions would make conflict inevitable. However, if Hitler had ignored his treaty with Japan, the US COULD have avoided a European war in 1942.

Newt Gingrich wrote a SciFi history called 1945 a few years ago. In the book Hitler was in a plane crash in fall 1941, and was incapacitated when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Due to his hospitalization he ignored his treaty with Japan. The US fought an exclusively Pacific War, which bearing the full brunt of US industrial might, Japan quickly lost. By 1945 the US and Germany were heading towards war but the US still behind in technology to the Germans. The rest of the book is pure imagination, but the premise was certainly plausible.


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16285 posts, RR: 56
Reply 17, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2137 times:

The US was going to be drwn into WWII with or without Pearl harbor. The question when you take out the attack is WHEN.

I agree. The US would not have tolerated a Nazi conquered Europe for long. Had Germany successfully invaded the UK, I think the US would have jumped immediately to the UK's defense, and then much of the continental combat fighting between the Allies and Germany would have occurred instead in the UK. Even without a UK invasion, the US inevitably would have gone to war against the Germans.

Russia was focused initially on repelling Germany from Russian land but then became the aggressors themselves by routing the Nazis and marching all the way to Berlin. Without the US & the UK fighting Germany from the West, Russia would likely have kept marching further west with a goal of making all of Europe Communist. The US had to enter to war to halt the westward march of the Russians as much as to defeat Germany.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 18, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2125 times:

I think that we can pretty safely argue that we where allready in the war in the Atlantic prior to Dec 41.

I don't see how the US could not have been drawn into the war eventually.

After all the Phillipines where hit just as hard, and where an American territory at the time.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2120 times:

I remember reading about the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe was doing a good job in the beginning beating up RAF bases but switched to carpet bombing city's. That was when the battle was lost. If they kept at the RAF he could have knocked the UK out of the war in which they would have sued for peace . The Wehrmacht and the SS were recruiting non German divisions in the UKraine, Serbia and probably could have had the Turks come on there side if Ataturk was given the proper motivation. Turks fought under Imperial German command in the WW1. They could have had stabilized the Russian front since Lend lease would have stopped since Britain was out of the war.
War between the U.S. and Japan would have inevitable. Lets not forget in this scenario that the Brits would have probably would have given up there holdings in the Pacific to the Germans in any terms of surrender or peace treaty. Then maybe then the US would have fought the Germans in the pacific



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13218 posts, RR: 77
Reply 20, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2093 times:

Some points;
Churchill said that the Battle Of The Atlantic was the theatre that worried him the most, even allowing for crash programmes in increased food cultivation at all levels.
But there was also fuel, here the Mediterranean and North African campaigns that Britain fought were vital, if now somewhat unsung.

Both in that theatre, as well as the Atlantic and Battle Of Britain, Hitler failed to get a knock out victory.
Britain being able to roll back Hitler was an impossibility by 1941, but it was by no means certain that Hitler would ever be in any position to visit London to see the Swastika raised over that city.

In late 1941, the US was a superpower in only the economic sphere, not militarily, the USN, while big and impressive, was still not as large as the RN, (who would in 1940, even without air cover and heavy losses, have massacred any German attempt to cross the Channel in a bunch of converted river barges and only a quite small German fleet to screen them, having taking a beating in the Norway campaign, despite winning there eventually).
But being an economic superpower, untroubled by air raids, made becoming a military superpower in short order much easier!
(In this respect, Lend Lease was a useful precursor to US mobilisation).

Despite the trouble we were in in 1941, after the invasion of Russia, the UK sent supplies to Russia, via the dangerous Arctic Convoys, another now sadly unsung effort.
It probably made little actual military difference, as least at first, politically it was vital however.

Then there is the Manhattan Project, a non US commitment to Europe would likely have made that effort if not delayed, maybe not even happening at all.
As those who created the whole enterprise, were motivated by fears of a Nazi bomb, including scientists who had fled from Hitler as well as British scientists too, working on this massive US project.

Now we know that Hitler was some way off getting one, not least due to efforts by the SOE, Commandos and Norwegian Resistance, but unencumbered by US entry into the war, he'd have got there eventually, along with an 'Amerika Bomber' or rocket, to carry it to NY and Washington.
Maybe after 'testing' it on London and/or Moscow.

What would be the point of eradicating European Jews and leaving a bunch in the US, which as a democracy and potential superpower, was always a medium to long term threat to a 1000 Year Reich.'


User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2067 times:

GDB

I agree with most of your post, however, I have to disagree with your assertion that the Manhattan Project might not have happened.

I agree that it may not have proceeded at the crash pace that it eventually did, but the scientists who made the case most strongly FOR the project were all German ex-pats. They made it seem that Germany was much further along in atomic bomb R&D then they really were, (sound familiar?)

Roosevelt, even if the US was not at war with Germany in 1941, could certainly see that war with Germany was inevitable, development had to continue. Who knows, if resources were concentrated on Japan and the Bomb alone without a European theatre it may have been developed quicker.

Hitler made three strategic errors that helped the allies win the war.

He abandoned the Battle of Britain. Germany should never have left its backdoor open.

He began the invasion of Russia a year or two too soon. And again before he finished off Britain.

He honored his trety with Japan. Bringing the Americans into the European war.

One could argue that he didn't develop war winning weapons either. Jet technology was on the backburner in the early years of the war. And Germany never developed a long-range heavy bomber that could do to Britain what the RAF and Army Air Corp did to Germany. Those are minor compared to the other three.


User currently offlineYanksn4 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1404 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2065 times:

Quoting UALPHLCS (reply 21):
He began the invasion of Russia a year or two too soon. And again before he finished off Britain


I do not think that Operation Barbarosa was too soon. If anything it was too late. If Hitler had started the operation a few months earlier, he would have toppled the Soviet government before the Russian winter came in. The second part I do agree with however.

signed,
Matthew



2013 Airports: EWR, JFK, LGA, LIS, AGP, DEN, GIG, RGN, BKK, LHR, FRA, LAX, SYD, PER, MEL, MCO, MIA, PEK, IAH
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2055 times:

I do not think that Operation Barbarosa was too soon. If anything it was too late

Just to add on this point, Hitler invaded Poland 3 years early. The Kreigsmarine did not have enough U Boats to do what they wanted to do in 1939. Adm Doenitz wanted a bigger fleet so he could have starved any resupply of the western Powers of France and Britian. If the Kreigsmarine had all the Uboats they wanted in 1942 or 43 then launch their ground offensive most of Europe would have speaking Duescth. Any resupply from the U'S. Would have ended up on the bottom of the North Atlantic. Lend Lease would have failed and Russia would have been on its own to fight off the Wehrmacht.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2042 times:

Quoting Venus6971 (reply 23):
If the Kreigsmarine had all the Uboats they wanted in 1942 or 43 then launch their ground offensive most of Europe would have speaking Duescth. Any resupply from the U'S. Would have ended up on the bottom of the North Atlantic. Lend Lease would have failed and Russia would have been on its own to fight off the Wehrmacht.


Interesting perspective.

I would make the following comments: I think the lend lease would have succeeeded regardless, as far as the Russians are concerned. Aircraft were being ferried through Canada and Alaska to Russia at a pretty steady unhindered rate.

I think the US would have still been able to provide resupply of materials to the UK, albeit less tonnage would have gotten through. Even with the fleet Donitz wanted his submarines couldn't be everywhere, every time.

As I mentioned in an earlier post . . .

Quoting ANCFlyer (reply 2):
Had Germany continued on it's quest to take over Europe and parts of Russia, certainly they would have had to slow to a stop evertually, simple logistics and lack of adequate forces would have caused this. However, as powerful as the jugernaut was in the beginning, there were few countries prepared to deal with its ferocity. Examples include Poland and France. I believe England would have held out, and I only give it a 1 in 10 chance of surrendering to the Germans since that was not Hitler's only battlefield. Eventually the Germans would have faced (and did in fact face) a formidible Russian foe that wore them down. The balance of the European countries were subjugated and IMO of no value militarily to the Russians. The UK could not have beaten the Germans back on their own, even with the assistance of the Russians on the opposite front. So, assistance from US would eventually have to come to break the stale mate.


25 DeskPilot : Disagree. The Luftwaffe were suffering terrible losses during the BoB. Their fighters could only manage 30 mins or less over UK soil to defend their
26 UALPHLCS : [quote=Venus6971,reply=23]Just to add on this point, Hitler invaded Poland 3 years early. The Kreigsmarine did not have enough U Boats to do what the
27 MD11Engineer : During the Casablanca conference in 1943, Roosevelt demanded an unconditional surender of Germany. During the 5th Washington conference of May 1943,
28 DL021 : Coming in late to the conversation..... Yes. We would have entered the war. Later than we did, and at different times against Japan and Germany, and w
29 GDB : Hitler certainly had all the signs of Parkinson's disease by late 1944, after the July Plot attempt on his life for sure. But he was far from well any
30 FDXmech : The B-36 Peacemaker was initially designed for a specification of intercontinental bombing capability (US to Germany) that assumed Britain would fall.
31 Venus6971 : Back to my point of starting the war too early. If Adm Doenitz would of had the navy he needed or wanted to be equal of the royal navy or the USN just
32 ANCFlyer : All well and true . . . now. Not necessarily then. Aircraft carriers and Naval Aviation were just coming in to their own. Effective tactics and strat
33 UALPHLCS : ANCFlyer, In answer to your question, YES. He would have continued to build Battleships. As I said Hilter's plan for his navy inclued a battleship wit
34 GDB : The only German carrier that was even started (but never completed), the Graf Zeppelin, was to carry navalised ME-109T fighters with JU-87's for strik
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Would The US Response Have Been Today? posted Thu Aug 10 2006 20:11:50 by RJpieces
Would You Have Dodged The Draft? posted Sat Apr 15 2006 18:54:38 by Alberchico
How Would You Have Killed Zarqawi? posted Fri Jun 9 2006 05:47:18 by TedTAce
Would You Have Been A Suicide Bomber? posted Tue Apr 18 2006 20:59:59 by Bushpilot
Would You Have Cosmetic Surgery? posted Thu Dec 22 2005 19:50:16 by Cosec59
Would Bush43 Have Gone Into Rwanda? posted Fri Oct 21 2005 03:16:48 by Logan22L
Europe's Worst Massacre Since WW II posted Tue Jul 12 2005 15:41:13 by Bravo45
Would The World Be More Peaceful W/o Religion? posted Mon Jul 11 2005 22:16:39 by Boeing Nut
What College Would You Have Liked To've Attended? posted Thu Jun 9 2005 04:38:07 by MD-90
WW II Started In 1937? posted Fri Jun 3 2005 10:52:32 by B741