Maybe not dead, but how about......a stroke in Spring of 1938? Can you say................................ President John Nance Garner? Oh the fun that would happen then.
How Would WW2 Go Without US Intervention
- Thread starter Emperor Norton I
- Start date
Maybe not dead, but how about......a stroke in Spring of 1938? Can you say................................ President John Nance Garner? Oh the fun that would happen then.
Show me one piece of evidence where our late arrival in WW1 completely turned the tide in WW1.
Well, there is Ludendorff's own statement that the Germans surrendered because the American army defeated them completely in the field (this was just as the war was winding down; he later retracted the statement in favor of a more political 'stab-in-the-back' thing). And it's the opinion of many on the board that the CP could have won the war had it not been for America's entry. I don't have any other facts on me, unfortunately (I don't know much about WW1), just telling you what I know.
Well, they could declare war on the Soviets because they think that they're about to collapse and want to get their share of the spoils. Even though they wouldn't get a great deal of oil, in their mind they'd be getting a fair amount of land for little effort, only later would they realise the mistake they had made.
The British may not 'need' to declare war, but they didn't 'need' to declare war on Finland either, it was a formality because they were at war with their ally.
b12ox
Banned
It would take ages for the Red Army to make it to Berlin without lend-lease trucks. The end of the war projected around the 50's when fought with conventional weapons. Before that of course the atomic bomb would be in place and german cities bombed to submition.
I believe that refers to a particular battle, not the war.
In retrospect it was the French General Foch who 'won' WWI on the second Marne in many respects, because he halted the German 1918 offensive. The 1918 offensive was designed by the Germans to end the war before the Americans could land troops in number in Europe, and therefore win the war without the Americans getting involved.
Because the German gamble failed, the war was lost for Germany.
It was more the pressence of America as another belligerant which could force the war to go on for much longer economically which would ruin Germany to make them press for an offensive.
The other stratergy they could have taken was to dig in futher.
However this would likely perpetuate the war some extra year or two years, which would have totally ruined Germany with that strategy. Therefore one can argue that the Germans picked the better of two strategies for 1918, and in many ways it nearly worked.
The Entente commanders at the time were seriously contemplating giving up Paris, and the British retreating to Calais as the German offensive was unleashed. However it is unlikely that the French or English would have surrendered after the fall of Paris, instead there would have been a likely 'armistace that led to conditional peace'. But who knows...
Garrison
Donor
It occurs to me that a US president who makes a real mess of things on the domestic front, and Garner was no fan of the New Deal, could create sufficient internal problems that US has no ability to face any external problems, they have to go easy with Japan because they can't afford the diversion of resources, and forget about Europe all together.
Garrison
Donor
Sidestepping the who did what in WWI debate I can see them staying out if continental Europe has become a wasteland filled with persistent chemical toxins, anthrax, and who knows what other nasties, less isolationism at that point than a quarantine against plague.