Did the US save Europe in WW2?

What language would Europe be speaking if the US stayed out in WW2?


  • Total voters
    77

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
Laugh all you want but its true.

Hitler started the war on a wrong basis and he continued to make serious mistakes throughout the war. Not Issuing his troops winterclothes was probably what cost him the war in the east, and afterwards declaring war on the US, not a smart move considering all the enemies he'd already made himself.
 
You're right, Soren, but he himself was the problem in the first place.
I think you mean that the war was inevitable and Europe must concider itself lucky for the fact that it was Hitler who ruled Germany during that war in stead of a more rational man and in that I agree.
 
Im with Adler on this one.

IMO Hitler declaring war on the US whilst still fighting the USSR was what cost the Germans the war. You can only fight so many...

So in short, no, the US did NOT save Europe, Hitler did.

No you are not with me on this. I never said (nor would I ever say) anything like that.

"the US did NOT save Europe, Hitler did."

:lol:
 
You're right, Soren, but he himself was the problem in the first place.
I think you mean that the war was inevitable and Europe must concider itself lucky for the fact that it was Hitler who ruled Germany during that war in stead of a more rational man and in that I agree.

Now that I will agree with.

I do however not think Hitler was the whole problem. Even if he had been more rational Hitler would not have been able to defeat all the countries that were fighting him. He bit off more than he could chew, yes certainly. However allied hard work won the war.
 
Okay dokay Adler, then we disagree.

Giving his troops winter clothes in StalinGrad and the Soviet Union would've lost quickly descisively. With the USSR down I can't see what the Allies could've possibly done to stop Hitler from taking Europe. And with the USSR under control Hitler would've also had a gateway into the US via Alaska Canada as-well.

But as it was Hitler just made too many mistakes, and that Goering was the leader of the LW didn't help either... (Dropping supplies to the enemy's troops instead of your own doesn't help you win the war ;) )

Hitler started the different conflicts, he is responsible for the war being lost alone. Had he not declared war on the US so soon he could've bought precious time, and had he given his troops winter clothes he would've taken stalingrad and the USSR would've crumbled.
 
I do however not think Hitler was the whole problem. Even if he had been more rational Hitler would not have been able to defeat all the countries that were fighting him. He bit off more than he could chew, yes certainly. However allied hard work won the war.

Agreed, but with a more rational leader in Germany, victory could have been even harder.
 
Okay dokay Adler, then we disagree.

Giving his troops winter clothes in StalinGrad and the Soviet Union would've lost quickly descisively. With the USSR down I can't see what the Allies could've possibly done to stop Hitler from taking Europe. And with the USSR under control Hitler would've also had a gateway into the US via Alaska Canada as-well.

But as it was Hitler just made too many mistakes, and that Goering was the leader of the LW didn't help either... (Dropping supplies to the enemy's troops instead of your own doesn't help you win the war ;) )

Hitler started the different conflicts, he is responsible for the war being lost alone. Had he not declared war on the US so soon he could've bought precious time, and had he given his troops winter clothes he would've taken stalingrad and the USSR would've crumbled.

Soren I agree that Hitler made great mistakes. That is actually quite obvious. However to say that the combined allied forces would not have been able to defeat Germany is pretty far fetched...
 
Giving his troops winter clothes in StalinGrad and the Soviet Union would've lost quickly descisively. With the USSR down I can't see what the Allies could've possibly done to stop Hitler from taking Europe. And with the USSR under control Hitler would've also had a gateway into the US via Alaska Canada as-well.

Gateway to the US???? :lol:

Now that is a little over the top.
 
Mkloby,

Why is it a little over the top ? Establish airbases close to Alaska and you don't have to fly that far to reach America. Flying from Germany is more over the top IMO.

Adler,

You mean the US (Canada, NZ, Australia) the UK ? Remember that the USSR is out, the front where 80% of German casualties were sustained isn't there, the US is far away, only Britain is close. After conquering the USSR Germany would have virtually unlimited supplies and manpower to power its warmachine, that means no shortage on fuel or raw materials = lots of big panzers, fast now reliable jets, StG.44's, etc etc. So many projects never finished or even started would've been carried out till completion by the Germans had they conquered the USSR. So how were the Allies ever going to win ?

Yes, the USSR was even more crucial to the fate of Europe than the US UK combined, some 13 million USSR troops, 2.5 million German troops, and over 20 million civilians lost their lives in the east. It was in the east that the most brutal type of war was taking place.

One must never forget how crucial the Russian war effort was to the defeat of Germany, it was like a big sponge soaking up huge amounts of resources from the German armed forces.
 
Mkloby,

Why is it a little over the top ? Establish airbases close to Alaska and you don't have to fly that far to reach America. Flying from Germany is more over the top IMO.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you were referring to Germany launching an invasion of North America through Alaska.
 
Hehe no no. I don't even think invading America would've seemed that attractable to Hitler by then had he just gotten Europe, he would most likely concentrate on the far east and southern parts of the world such as Africa Asia.
 
Adler,

You mean the US (Canada, NZ, Australia) the UK ? Remember that the USSR is out, the front where 80% of German casualties were sustained isn't there, the US is far away, only Britain is close. After conquering the USSR Germany would have virtually unlimited supplies and manpower to power its warmachine, that means no shortage on fuel or raw materials = lots of big panzers, fast now reliable jets, StG.44's, etc etc. So many projects never finished or even started would've been carried out till completion by the Germans had they conquered the USSR. So how were the Allies ever going to win ?

Yes, the USSR was even more crucial to the fate of Europe than the US UK combined, some 13 million USSR troops, 2.5 million German troops, and over 20 million civilians lost their lives in the east. It was in the east that the most brutal type of war was taking place.

One must never forget how crucial the Russian war effort was to the defeat of Germany, it was like a big sponge soaking up huge amounts of resources from the German armed forces.

No I dont forget how crucial it is. Germany was not going to defeat Russia. They had a chance in 1942 and they lost it. After that it was just a long march back to Berlin.

Soren said:
It was in the east that the most brutal type of war was taking place.

I am aware of that as well. My Grandfather was in the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front including Stalingrad...
 
How the hell would the Germans get from Alaska to anywhere . Look at a road map from that era there isn't a single road from Alaska to anywhere . Mind you the US built the Alaska Highway in an icredible 6 months so they could ferry aircraft to the USSR but I'm going to guess the germans would have built a 4 lane autoban . It was the second most expensive project of the War after the Manhattan Project
 
So where do we disagree Adler ??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back