Capt. Harlock
Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001 From: Los Angeles Status: offline
|
quote:
If America stayed neutral in WW2, how would it have turned out? I hate to play on semantics here, but it really does depend on how you define neutral. Without American troops on the other fronts, the Soviets still had enough manpower to beat the Wermacht. But without American supplies? That's a harder question. (The "deuce and a half" truck was as valuable on the Eastern front as it was in the West.) Let it be noted that by the end of October 1941, five weeks before Pearl Harbor, the U.S. was already a combatant in all but name. We were supplying considerable help through Lend-Lease, our ports were available for R&R&R (rest, refuel, and repair) of British ships, and we were in a shooting war with German U-Boats. (We were losing, but that's not the point.) Lastly, it's hard to see how the U.S. could possibly have stayed neutral in the Pacific. We were applying strong economic sanctions against Japan for the actions in China and Indochina, which was not exactly neutral. Japan's invasion of the Dutch East Indies (DEI for all the Pacific wargaming fanboys) would very likely have lead to war, since we recognized the Free Dutch government. Invasion of the Philippines would have lead to war beyond question. And I highly doubt the Japanese would have been content to seize the Southern Resource Area and leave the Philippines and its bases to threaten them.
_____________________________
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers? --Victor Hugo
|