- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Two questions about World War 2 in Europe.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 11:46 am
Posted on 10/29/24 at 11:46 am
1. Was there a peaceful solution prior to its start?
2. Was the United States needed to win it?
2. Was the United States needed to win it?
29
Posted on 10/29/24 at 11:48 am to Pandy Fackler
1. Three
2. Fiddy
2. Fiddy
Posted on 10/29/24 at 11:50 am to Pandy Fackler
quote:
2. Was the United States needed to win it?
Posted on 10/29/24 at 11:50 am to soccerfüt
1. Less violent maybe, but not peaceful
2. No, Russia probably would have controlled more than the Nazis did by the time they were done
2. No, Russia probably would have controlled more than the Nazis did by the time they were done
Posted on 10/29/24 at 11:51 am to Pandy Fackler
Not really.
Yes.
Yes.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 11:52 am to Pandy Fackler
Chamberlain wanted a peaceful solution, but he went about it through appeasement and Hitler loved that.
The Allies would have had to start in the 1930s by putting a lot of money into arming and modernizing France and Poland at least, and they had no idea what was coming that early.
At least US materials were needed to win, and without the US in the Pacific, I think the Japanese would have taken everything they wanted and fortified their positions. And potentially would have put the Soviets in a 2-front war, making things easier on Germany.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 11:52 am to RATeamWannabe
quote:
2. No, Russia probably would have controlled more than the Nazis did by the time they were done
We kept them supplied and in the fight before we even joined the war. They would have never had the chance to roll to Berlin without the materiel support we gave them.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 11:52 am to RATeamWannabe
quote:
Russia probably would have controlled more than the Nazis did by the time they were done
Nazis could have been squashed pretty much before it really got started but they weren't taken seriously as a threat
Posted on 10/29/24 at 11:52 am to RATeamWannabe
quote:
2. No, Russia probably would have controlled more than the Nazis did by the time they were done
Perhaps. However, let’s not forget how much the Soviets needed supplies and equipment from the U.S.
Stalin was definitely in favor of the Western Allies invading France, too.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 11:53 am to Pandy Fackler
Depends
depends
Owls shopping list
lol me Skilly
depends
Owls shopping list
lol me Skilly
Posted on 10/29/24 at 11:53 am to Pandy Fackler
!. If Britain and France had stood up to Hitler after Chekoslavakia, he would have backed down or it would have been a short war with him losing.
2. Since they didn't our help was needed. It is possible that Hitler could have been defeated in Europe with us supplying weapons and naval forces only, but that's iffy. Russia, with our material help, fought the brunt of the war in Europe. Pearl Harbor made the question moot.
2. Since they didn't our help was needed. It is possible that Hitler could have been defeated in Europe with us supplying weapons and naval forces only, but that's iffy. Russia, with our material help, fought the brunt of the war in Europe. Pearl Harbor made the question moot.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 11:55 am to Pandy Fackler
quote:
1. Was there a peaceful solution prior to its start?
No. Hitler's ultimate goal was to bring war to Europe, eastern Europe in particular, to fulfill his goals for the German "race." There would have eventually been a major conflagration due to these goals.
quote:
2. Was the United States needed to win it?
The United States was needed to win it as quickly as it did and to keep the Soviet Union from advancing into western Europe. Without the United States there is no invasion of France in 1944.
This post was edited on 10/29/24 at 11:56 am
Posted on 10/29/24 at 12:10 pm to Pandy Fackler
quote:
1. Was there a peaceful solution prior to its start?
Yes, but you probably have to go all the way back to the Treaty of Versailles
Posted on 10/29/24 at 12:24 pm to Pandy Fackler
There may have been peaceful solutions but appeasement was not one of them. You can never predict what a person like Hitler would do.
Without any US involvement (no men, no materials, no oil embargo of Japan), the Germans and Japanese absolutely win WW2.
Without any US involvement (no men, no materials, no oil embargo of Japan), the Germans and Japanese absolutely win WW2.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 12:30 pm to Tiger Prawn
I agree with this - if you want a peaceful solution to WWII you need to go back to the Treat of Versailles. From the moment that treaty was signed, Europe was headed for way at some point in the future.
In Europe I don’t know if ground forces were necessarily needed but the Allies absolutely needed our tanks, guns, etc. The Soviets get rolled without it IMO.
In Europe I don’t know if ground forces were necessarily needed but the Allies absolutely needed our tanks, guns, etc. The Soviets get rolled without it IMO.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 12:40 pm to ryanlsu
Hitler had plans for America, as well. One way or another, our grandfathers were going to end up fighting them. There- or perhaps even here, eventually.
Besides, Germany was already waging war with America before Pearl Harbor took place with their U-Boats. It was inevitable.
Besides, Germany was already waging war with America before Pearl Harbor took place with their U-Boats. It was inevitable.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 12:44 pm to Pandy Fackler
No, no real solution. If they came down hard on Germany prior - which they did after WWI which directly led to WWII - it wouldn't have made a difference. As bad as Hitler was, he did turn the nation around after being decimated after WWI was over.
Yes, the US absolutely was needed. Russia couldn't have taken Germany had it not been fighting on three fronts. Take the US out, Britain would have been done and all of Germany's resources could have been turned towards russia.
Yes, the US absolutely was needed. Russia couldn't have taken Germany had it not been fighting on three fronts. Take the US out, Britain would have been done and all of Germany's resources could have been turned towards russia.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 12:45 pm to ryanlsu
quote:No. they were never getting Britain and they were never going to advanced east into Russia
Without any US involvement (no men, no materials, no oil embargo of Japan), the Germans and Japanese absolutely win WW2
It would have lasted far longer but eventually the Nazis would have “lost”
Posted on 10/29/24 at 12:46 pm to oleheat
quote:\
Besides, Germany was already waging war with America before Pearl Harbor took place with their U-Boats. It was inevitable.
The German U Boats were in Louisiana waters in the Gulf sinking ships
Posted on 10/29/24 at 12:49 pm to Pandy Fackler
quote:
1. Was there a peaceful solution prior to its start?
Yes, Neville Chamberlain would swear to it.
quote:
Was the United States needed to win it?
Yes, Russia needed the US to keep Japan occupied while they pushed back the Nazis. Germany blitzed Russia so easily because Stalin thought Japan was going to attack from the East. Once the US told Stalin that Japan wasn't going to attack, he devoted most of his resources to Germany and pushed back the Nazis.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News