English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Carved out the future of Europe with FDR negotiating with Hitler over who controlled where?

2007-04-23 05:18:05 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

13 answers

The axis never had the resources to wage a long war. If Moscow and St Petersburg had been captured the Soviets would have just retreated to the East as they had done to defeat the French in the 19th century. Long supply lines and limited troops make for a loss.

A slightly more dense question: In a jello wrestling match between Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini, who would have won? Assume lime jello on neutral ground.

2007-04-23 09:43:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No, the USA got involved in the European front because of Pearl Harbour. And the Germans got them in. FDR and a thinking minority of americans wanted to fight the Nazis. On Dec 07/41 the cold war between the Japanese Empire and the USA went hot but more importantly on Dec. 10 Hitler declared war on the USA. He probally did this from his sense of loyalty to a treaty partner but it was a pretty stupid move. The British were largely dependent on the lend lease convoys for weapons and food from North America. If there had been no declaration of war from Germany FDR would have had no leaverage to continue to send materiel under Lend Lease to England that would have to have been diverted from a declared war in the Pacific. England would have been supplied by only commonwealth nations such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, isolated from it's major supplier the USA. Only Canada would not have been vulnerable to attack from the Japanese and therefore the only certain supply point. Canadian convoys would have to go through a gauntlet of German u boats. As Churchhill noted it was the uboats that almost sunk England. They were repelled but this with the very active assistance of the US Navy and Air Force, a military arm that would have been largely put to use in the Pacific.
As for the Russian front,given the order of battle the Germans had and the intelligence that the Germans were acting on in their battle plans it is highly unlikely that the Germans would or could have won. They simply had no idea of the climate factors, men,weaponry or vast spaces they had to overcome.
From what I have read of FDR he may had been ready to be civil with the devil but he would not have dealt with Hitler.

The Zimmerman Telegram was a British intelligence ploy used during the First World War. And I am not getting into the convoluted machinations behind that. The UN was not even being considered in 1941 and did not form until 1946.

2007-04-23 13:01:14 · answer #2 · answered by ? 5 · 0 0

Not a chance - the US was heading into the war regardless of what the Germans were doing in Russia. The question might be more accurately – what would happen if before the US started helping the Russians, the Germans had over run the Russians. How would the outcome on the ground in Europe have been changed?

"I am a soldier, I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight."
- General George Patton Jr

2007-04-23 12:23:18 · answer #3 · answered by patrsup 4 · 0 0

1) No, if for no other reason than that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor before Hitler invaded Russia.

2) It's not a good question anyway - the distance was just too far to cover with tanks in 3 months, so there was no way they could have been successful. They should have consolidated their gains in Scandinavia and then instead of attacking Britain by air, attacked Moscow from the North, which was the American battle plan in the 1980s.

2007-04-23 12:23:13 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The Japanese brought us into the WW2 so it didn't matter if the Germans were successful onthe eastern front or not. If the Russians were out of it, it would've taken longer to defeat Hitler. It is my sense that our obligation to the British would've been the main reason to carry the fight to the Germans.

2007-04-23 17:32:26 · answer #5 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0 0

No.. In timeline factuals we were supporting britian financial well before the attack at pearl harbor. In fact FDR in early 1941 had called for US convoys to attack the German Subs in the English Channel that had terriorized Britian. The US actually would not have sent troops to europe if it was not for the fact that the United Nations was being formed and Stalin was asking for help

2007-04-23 12:45:31 · answer #6 · answered by Derek O 3 · 0 0

The only reason why we entered the war was because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on 12-7-41. We became involved in the European theater, because as an ally of the Japanese, Hitler declared war on the US after the US declared war on Japan.

2007-04-23 12:22:11 · answer #7 · answered by tangerine 7 · 0 0

No we would not have. The UK would not have sued for peace after the fall of USSR, and The US would have been pulled in by The UK or walked in on there own. With Hind sight we know that Hitler had a long-term plan had he won in Russia he would have come back to Britain, and to the US in the long run. Now if we (US) had been German speaking that might have changed things.

2007-04-23 12:49:05 · answer #8 · answered by thurmite 2 · 0 0

Don't forget a little teletype that went to Mexico from the Gremans, asking them to attack america to keep us out of Europe, untill the Germans could controll it.

Yes, if the attack on pearl never happened, i believe we would of been in the european theater.

2007-04-23 12:50:39 · answer #9 · answered by xwhyzguy78 2 · 0 0

Once the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and we declared war on the Japanese we were automatically at war with Germany because they were allies - declaring war on Japan automatically meant declaring war on Germany, so the answer is no.

2007-04-23 12:28:50 · answer #10 · answered by Paul Hxyz 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers