Thread: What would have happened if the US had been one of the allies in 1939?

Originally Posted by Static Caster

If the Americans entered the war earlier, there may not have been enough time for Russia to advance as far west as it did and MAYBE, we wouldn't have had an East & West Germany afterwards.

Had the Americans stayed out of the conflict entirely, the Soviet Union would have changed the course of Europe altogether I think....

if the US had gotten involved at the onset, there wouldnt have been a russian front for germany, russia would probably have never gotten involved in the war, or worse yet, they may have supported germany.

Actually, the turning point was not about American participation but the Sudetenland. Had the French and Brits supported the Czechs, the Wehrmacht would have been wiped from the face of the earth.

these days there is another "hopeful" who would surrender will in deserts and bring the world to ruin

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Actually, the turning point was not about American participation but the Sudetenland. Had the French and Brits supported the Czechs, the Wehrmacht would have been wiped from the face of the earth.

How could the French and Brits supported the Germans? Did they have any sufficient expedionary forces available at that time?

If not, that might explain the reasons for Chamberlain's "appeasements". Everybody keeps calling Chamberlain a coward but nobody remembers that he was singly responsible for restarting the British military which was in serious decline. He was the one that made several huge orders to build more warships and planes and started the path to military innovation. Without those things, even Churchill would have a very very tough time standing up to the German war machine.

The credit for the buildup of the British war machine goes to Chamberlain, not Churchill.

Remember before the war broke out, the world was in midst of a great depression, and England was not immune to it. To deal with the depression, British was forced to make several cuts in the military budget and have an empire army and navy on the cheap. Chamberlain was the one who changed the direction of that military thinking.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

How could the French and Brits supported the Germans? Did they have any sufficient expedionary forces available at that time?

You mean supporting the Czechs? The Wehrmacht would have bled white trying to take the Sudetenland. Unlike the Maginot Line, the Sudetenland fortifications left no room for manouver and the Wehrmacht would have to take those head on. Also instead of a single line, there was actual depth to the Czech defences. The Wehrmacht would be in no position to take on anybody else.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

The credit for the buildup of the British war machine goes to Chamberlain, not Churchill.

Remember before the war broke out, the world was in midst of a great depression, and England was not immune to it. To deal with the depression, British was forced to make several cuts in the military budget and have an empire army and navy on the cheap. Chamberlain was the one who changed the direction of that military thinking.

The army sufferred and sufferred bad but the Royal Navy remained top notch vis-a-vi everybody else. Also, you have to consider that while the British Army was in decline, so was everybody else. The much vaunted Wehrmacht blitzkreig could not have happenned without the tanks they took/stole from the Czechs.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

You mean supporting the Czechs? The Wehrmacht would have bled white trying to take the Sudetenland. Unlike the Maginot Line, the Sudetenland fortifications left no room for manouver and the Wehrmacht would have to take those head on. Also instead of a single line, there was actual depth to the Czech defences. The Wehrmacht would be in no position to take on anybody else.



The army sufferred and sufferred bad but the Royal Navy remained top notch vis-a-vi everybody else. Also, you have to consider that while the British Army was in decline, so was everybody else. The much vaunted Wehrmacht blitzkreig could not have happenned without the tanks they took/stole from the Czechs.

Sorry my bad, I meant the Czechs. How could the Czech have better tanks than the Germans? I thought Germany had their own tank producing factories?

From what I've read of your post, you are implying that Czech had better war materials producing factories than Germany.

If the Sudetenland fortications would have bled Germany to blood, how could Germany withstood the Russian fortications for a long period of time?

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Sorry my bad, I meant the Czechs. How could the Czech have better tanks than the Germans? I thought Germany had their own tank producing factories?

From what I've read of your post, you are implying that Czech had better war materials producing factories than Germany.

The Czechs had their own Panzer Is and IIs that the Wehrmacht took for their own.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

If the Sudetenland fortications would have bled Germany to blood, how could Germany withstood the Russian fortications for a long period of time?

One reason and one reason only, Stalin's purges. Even the famous Field Marshall Zuhkov was freezing his butt in Siberia. On paper, the Red Army was at least on par, if not superior, than the Wehrmacht. However, when you start giving up 2 million prisoners per campaign, someone was obviously humping the dog (and that someone was Stalin).