If america never got involved in ww2? if germany defeated britain after the battle of britain lets say the soviets defeated the nazis and gained all of their former territory including britain and north africa. suppose the soviets defeated japan and gained all of its territory in mainland asia. could russia have been more powerful than america by dictating the world economic system if all of europe, asia, and africa were under its control? or could america still have the means to come out on top?
2007-12-26 23:24:36 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
If America would not have gotten into WWII, that would have meant that the Japanese never started a war of conquest in the Pacific--America would have responded whether Pearl Harbor was attacked or not--the Phillipines at the time were an American possession. Therefore no war in the Pacific--no asian possessions for Joe Stalin to get--and he would not have started not with the Germans bearing down on him. Had America not entered the war--Russia would not have gotten the allied american war materials that he got. If Germany defeated Britian the Germans would have had to have won the air batle for Britian--which means the Germans would have kept bombing the airfields and factories and quit going for population centers. Beating the British would indicate the Reich made good strategic and tactical decisions-indicating Hitler wasn't playing general. In this case, if the generals were actually listened to--the Wehrmacht would have defeated the Russians in detail at Smolensk instead of galavanting north to Stalingrad. Therefore with your hypothetical the Germans finished with the atomic bomb--and the world speaks German today.
2007-12-27 02:12:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They could have, but if the Germans defeated Britain, the US never would have supported the USSR. Then the Russians never would have had the supplies to keep fighting and they would have lost the war also.
2007-12-27 00:15:03 · answer #2 · answered by Chris 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Russia, resource wise, is a very rich country. A large variety of metal ores, diamonds and oil give Russia a lot to work with. Their main problem is about 60 years of Communism to dig out of. They have yet to throw off all the old ways and are still working very inefficiently. Russia has the natural resources to build a great nation.
2007-12-26 23:37:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, Communism would have held them back from actually using it, just as they collapesed in 1990's.
Even as it was, they were not able to support the infrastructure they had as it was. Food went rotting at railyards because they couldn't transport it.
Even though you didn't hear about it, people were rebelling against communism in the Warsaw Pact, Hungary was the biggest example.
Basically, Communism under Stalin's ideas would have imploded it as happened
2007-12-27 00:33:02 · answer #4 · answered by mnbvcxz52773 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not a snow balls chance on the sun.. Joe Stalan was almost over run at lenengrad. The only thng keeping them afloat was the lend/lease
2007-12-26 23:34:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, for a lot of reasons.
2007-12-26 23:29:23 · answer #6 · answered by Nicole A 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Here we go with !IF" again, I will respond with "IT"
IT NEVER HAPPENED SO IS IRRELEVANT!!!
2007-12-27 03:10:33 · answer #7 · answered by conranger1 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋