• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could America have stopped WWII?

So here's the scenario:

1936

1. America wasn't isolationist pre-WWII. Quite the opposite. They called America, "the World's Policeman."

2. America had state of the art equipment. America produced the M4A1 Sherman tank in 1936. That year, the p47 fighter was also produced.

3. America had bases in Europe with tens of thousands of troops in France and Poland.

4. Soon as Hitler invaded the Rhineland, America made Hitler stop and withdraw back to his borders.

5. America stayed on top of things and made sure Hitler didn't go on any adventures.


We would've saved 440,000 Americans, for starters and 63 million dead world wide.

Forget about Japan for the moment.


.

Neither the P-40 nor the M4 began development in 1936. Development on them didn’t even start until 1940.

Your idea is absurd.
 
The point I'm making is that today we're the "world's policeman" and we have the state of the art equipment and we're in everyone's business.

I'm saying if we were that way in 1935, we could've stopped WWII.

Isolationism is dangerous in a dangerous world. And we were very isolationist in 1935.
Despite the best equipment, state of the art technology, superlative training, unprecedented professionalism, and the best global logistics system which trillions of dollars of US tax-payer money can buy, has the US Military stopped any wars in the post WWII era? What makes you think that modernising the US military before 1935 would have enabled the US to stop a looming set of wars in the 1936-1939 period.

The US polis was highly isolationist throughout the interwar years as was the US Government (Congress) except in matters of empire and commerce. That's why FDR's hands were so tied in matters military during the years leading up to Japan's attack and Germany's declaration of war in 1941.

So, no.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
Despite the best equipment, state of the art technology, superlative training, unprecedented professionalism, and the best global logistics system which trillions of dollars of US tax-payer money can buy, has the US Military stopped any wars in the post WWII era? What makes you think that modernising the US military before 1935 would have enabled the US to stop a looming set of wars in the 1936-1939 period.

The US polis was highly isolationist throughout the interwar years as was the US Government (Congress) except in matters of empire and commerce. That's why FDR's hands were so tied in matters military during the years leading up to Japan's attack and Germany's declaration of war in 1941.

So, no.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.


Yes.

WWIII



.
 
On the contrary, isolationism would have prevented WW1 and by default WW2.

This only works if everyone is isolationist and in that scenario nobody bothers going to war ever.
 
And yeah, the other reality is over 90% of the American public was firmly against use getting involved in another European war.
 
So here's the scenario: 1936

1. America wasn't isolationist pre-WWII. Quite the opposite. They called America, "the World's Policeman."
2. America had state of the art equipment. America produced the M4A1 Sherman tank in 1936. That year, the p47 fighter was also produced.
3. America had bases in Europe with tens of thousands of troops in France and Poland.
4. Soon as Hitler invaded the Rhineland, America made Hitler stop and withdraw back to his borders.
5. America stayed on top of things and made sure Hitler didn't go on any adventures.
We would've saved 440,000 Americans, for starters and 63 million dead world wide.
Forget about Japan for the moment.


.
We didn't have the military might to interfere, we were still struggling with the depression and far more interested in fighting The Battle of the New Deal. We simply couldn't afford a massive military presence anywhere- not even in the States. It takes years to build up a military so you can project power, years of massive spending and during the depression that funding simply wasn't there.

You would have to pretend the depression never happened and quite probably Hitler would have been a punk little convict trying to peddle rather mediocre paintings... ✌️
 
This is a 'if my sister had balls she'd be my brother' scenario, right?
The USSR won WW2 in Europe.
The United States was responsible for the defeat of Japan, but in Europe all they really did was help Britain keep Germany from being able to focus on the USSR.
 
Why do I sense the OP in some strange twist is implying US enabled Hitler. Hhhmmm
 
We didn't have the military might to interfere, we were still struggling with the depression and far more interested in fighting The Battle of the New Deal. We simply couldn't afford a massive military presence anywhere- not even in the States. It takes years to build up a military so you can project power, years of massive spending and during the depression that funding simply wasn't there.

You would have to pretend the depression never happened and quite probably Hitler would have been a punk little convict trying to peddle rather mediocre paintings... ✌️


"Scenario" is make believe for adults.


.
 
"Scenario" is make believe for adults.


.
It's more like fantasy- too many facts ignored to make a scenario. The Sherman for instance, wasn't even a prototype until late '41.

But even given all that what happens in your ahhh 'scenario' turns America into the world police after generations of isolationism???
 
”On September 11, 1940, in Washington, D.C., the President said: “I hate war, now more than ever. I have one supreme determination—to do all that I can to keep war away from these shores for all time. I stand, with my party, and outside of my party as President of all the people, on the platform, the wording that was adopted in Chicago less than two months ago. It said: ‘We will not participate in foreign wars, and we will not send our army, naval or air forces to fight in foreign lands outside of the Americas, except in case of attack.'”

FDR was an isolationist president who was against foreign wars. The Democratic platform adopted in 1940 also stated: “We will not participate in foreign wars, and we will not send our army, naval or air forces to fight in foreign lands outside of the Americas, except in case of attack.” America should have re-elected Herbert Hoover in 1932. Since America had an isolationist president, Hitler had a free hand to invade and occupy neighboring territories at will. The Hoover administration had the policy of nonrecognition of states created as a result of aggression, which was called the Stimson Doctrine, to contain Nazi Germany. This strong foreign policy was completely reversed by the Roosevelt administration, resulting in the policy of appeasement.
 
Last edited:
It's more like fantasy- too many facts ignored to make a scenario. The Sherman for instance, wasn't even a prototype until late '41.

But even given all that what happens in your ahhh 'scenario' turns America into the world police after generations of isolationism???

*eyeroll*

"Russians invade Alaska," is a scenario.


Yes, I know it never happened and will never happen. It's a scenario.


.
 
This only works if everyone is isolationist and in that scenario nobody bothers going to war ever.
Noninterventionism ("isolationism") would've kept us out of WWI which would've made WWII less likely.
 
"Americans, for starters" just ain't right. American WWII dead should not be painted as victims but as heroes. We don't do heroes first, we do victims first.
 
*eyeroll* "Russians invade Alaska," is a scenario. Yes, I know it never happened and will never happen. It's a scenario.


.
Russia invades Alaska with their army as it stands in that time frame- Scenario. Russians invading Alaska with AKs, T34/85 and Mig 15's back in 1941- Fantasy.

In order for your fantasy to be a scenario you have to work with what we had then. You have to ask what stimulus was applied to us to create weapons like the Sherman, Thunderbolt, Lightening....etc. How did we avoid the Great Depression when arguably we started it???

I've read fantasies, I've been a pawn in war games played while in the service. Not nik-picking, trying to give you some pointers when war gaming the 'what-ifs'.

Or as they say, garbage in- garbage out.... ✌️
 
America helped stop the USSR from over-running western Europe when the Soviet Union won WW2 in Europe. That's about it.
But the US Navy did win the war in the Pacific.
Thread win
 
Russia invades Alaska with their army as it stands in that time frame- Scenario. Russians invading Alaska with AKs, T34/85 and Mig 15's back in 1941- Fantasy.

In order for your fantasy to be a scenario you have to work with what we had then. You have to ask what stimulus was applied to us to create weapons like the Sherman, Thunderbolt, Lightening....etc. How did we avoid the Great Depression when arguably we started it???

I've read fantasies, I've been a pawn in war games played while in the service. Not nik-picking, trying to give you some pointers when war gaming the 'what-ifs'.

Or as they say, garbage in- garbage out.... ✌️

Part 1

Yep, because AKs weren't developed until after WWII:

"During World War II, the Sturmgewehr 44 rifle used by German forces made a deep impression on their Soviet counterparts.[10][11] The select-fire rifle was chambered for a new intermediate cartridge, the 7.92×33mm Kurz, and combined the firepower of a submachine gun with the range and accuracy of a rifle.[12][13] On 15 July 1943, an earlier model of the Sturmgewehr was demonstrated before the People's Commissariat of Arms of the USSR.[14] The Soviets were impressed with the weapon and immediately set about developing an intermediate caliber fully automatic rifle of their own,[10][11] to replace the PPSh-41 submachine guns and outdated Mosin–Nagant bolt-action rifles that armed most of the Soviet Army.[15]

"The Soviets soon developed the 7.62×39mm M43 cartridge,[14] the semi-automatic SKS carbine and the RPD light machine gun.[16] Shortly after World War II, the Soviets developed the AK-47 rifle, which would quickly replace the SKS in Soviet service.[17][18] Introduced in 1959, the AKM is a lighter stamped steel version and the most ubiquitous variant of the entire AK series of firearms. In the 1960s, the Soviets introduced the RPK light machine gun, an AK type weapon with a stronger receiver, a longer heavy barrel, and a bipod, that would eventually replace the RPD light machine gun.[16]"

(My emphasis - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47)
 
Part 2

Nor was the T-34/85 available in 1941:

"Design of the T-34-85
"Gun
"The M1939 (52-K) air-defense gun was efficient and well-proven, sporting a 55 caliber barrel. It had a muzzle velocity of 792 m/s (2,598 ft/s). General Vasiliy Grabin and General Fyodor Petrov directed the team responsible with the conversion, initially into an anti-tank gun. Soon it appeared ideally suited for a tank, and the first to use a derivative model, the D-5, was the SU-85, a tank destroyer based on the T-34 chassis. This was an interim measure as the gun had to be integrated on the T-34-85, but the time necessary in order to create the turret delayed its adoption.

"Other teams soon proposed the S-18 and the ZiS-53 for the same purposes. The three guns were tested at Gorokhoviesky Proving Grounds, near Gorkiy. The S-18 won the competition at first and its design was approved for use in the modified turret, but dropped when it was apparent that it was not compatible with the D-5 mounting for which the turret was designed. However, the D-5, conceived by Petrov, was retested and showed a limited elevation and other minor defects, but equipped the first production series (model 1943) of the T-34-85 as the D-5T. At the same time, Grabin’s gun, the ZiS-53 showed mediocre ballistic performances and had to be reshaped by A. Savin. On December 15, 1943 this modified version, named the ZiS-S-53, was chosen to be produced en masse and equipped all T-34-85’s model 1944. Around 11,800 had been delivered during the next year only."

(My emphasis - see https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/soviet_t34-85)

Nor was the Mig-15 available:

"The Soviet Union's first swept-wing jet fighter had been the underpowered Lavochkin La-160, which was otherwise more similar to the MiG-9. The Lavochkin La-168, which reached production as the Lavochkin La-15, used the same engine as the MiG but used a shoulder-mounted wing and t-tail; it was the main competitive design. Eventually, the MiG design was favoured for mass production. Designated MiG-15, the first production example flew on 31 December 1948. It entered Soviet Air Force service in 1949 and subsequently received the NATO reporting name "Fagot". Early production examples had a tendency to roll to the left or to the right due to manufacturing variances, so aerodynamic trimmers called "nozhi" (knives) were fitted to correct the problem, the knives being adjusted by ground crews until the aircraft flew correctly.[3]"

(My emphasis - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-15)

So no, the scenario is not true to fact.
 
Part 2

Nor was the T-34/85 available in 1941:

"Design of the T-34-85
"Gun
"The M1939 (52-K) air-defense gun was efficient and well-proven, sporting a 55 caliber barrel. It had a muzzle velocity of 792 m/s (2,598 ft/s). General Vasiliy Grabin and General Fyodor Petrov directed the team responsible with the conversion, initially into an anti-tank gun. Soon it appeared ideally suited for a tank, and the first to use a derivative model, the D-5, was the SU-85, a tank destroyer based on the T-34 chassis. This was an interim measure as the gun had to be integrated on the T-34-85, but the time necessary in order to create the turret delayed its adoption.

"Other teams soon proposed the S-18 and the ZiS-53 for the same purposes. The three guns were tested at Gorokhoviesky Proving Grounds, near Gorkiy. The S-18 won the competition at first and its design was approved for use in the modified turret, but dropped when it was apparent that it was not compatible with the D-5 mounting for which the turret was designed. However, the D-5, conceived by Petrov, was retested and showed a limited elevation and other minor defects, but equipped the first production series (model 1943) of the T-34-85 as the D-5T. At the same time, Grabin’s gun, the ZiS-53 showed mediocre ballistic performances and had to be reshaped by A. Savin. On December 15, 1943 this modified version, named the ZiS-S-53, was chosen to be produced en masse and equipped all T-34-85’s model 1944. Around 11,800 had been delivered during the next year only."

(My emphasis - see https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/soviet_t34-85)

Nor was the Mig-15 available:

"The Soviet Union's first swept-wing jet fighter had been the underpowered Lavochkin La-160, which was otherwise more similar to the MiG-9. The Lavochkin La-168, which reached production as the Lavochkin La-15, used the same engine as the MiG but used a shoulder-mounted wing and t-tail; it was the main competitive design. Eventually, the MiG design was favoured for mass production. Designated MiG-15, the first production example flew on 31 December 1948. It entered Soviet Air Force service in 1949 and subsequently received the NATO reporting name "Fagot". Early production examples had a tendency to roll to the left or to the right due to manufacturing variances, so aerodynamic trimmers called "nozhi" (knives) were fitted to correct the problem, the knives being adjusted by ground crews until the aircraft flew correctly.[3]"

(My emphasis - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-15)

So no, the scenario is not true to fact.


Despite what Wikipedia may tell you, there is nothing preventing you from using scenario to refer to past events, especially if the actual circumstances are unknown or unclear: From NOAD:

scenario |səˈne(ə)rēˌō; -ˈnär-| noun ( pl. -os)
a written outline of a movie, novel, or stage work giving details of the plot and individual scenes : imagine the scenarios for four short stories.
• a postulated sequence or development of events : a possible scenario is that he was attacked after opening the front door.
• a setting, in particular for a work of art or literature : the scenario is World War II.



"Scenario" means made up. A story. Make believe. It didn't happen. It never will happen. Fiction. Invented. A lie.

lol
 
So here's the scenario:

1936

1. America wasn't isolationist pre-WWII. Quite the opposite. They called America, "the World's Policeman."

2. America had state of the art equipment. America produced the M4A1 Sherman tank in 1936. That year, the p47 fighter was also produced.

3. America had bases in Europe with tens of thousands of troops in France and Poland.

4. Soon as Hitler invaded the Rhineland, America made Hitler stop and withdraw back to his borders.

5. America stayed on top of things and made sure Hitler didn't go on any adventures.


We would've saved 440,000 Americans, for starters and 63 million dead world wide.

Forget about Japan for the moment.


.
I am from europe...I do not think that the nazis would have given up as early if it were not for you guys... I recognise the enormous toll it put on the United States
...As a.european I just wanna say thank you

You will see tributes to american solideres for freeing europe (engraved in stone) in Munich, Vienna and other towns...

So simply: Thank you for helping us europeans for overcoming our worst desires (as Freud pointed out in Totem and Taboo and the Future of an illusion)
 
I've seen some speculation that FDR didn't want to stop the war, he wanted a reason to get it. Not only to stop the Axis but to escape the depression; he realized all his alphabet programs and such just weren't working and only a wartime economy would work
 
...

"Scenario" means made up. A story. Make believe. It didn't happen. It never will happen. Fiction. Invented. A lie.

lol

If you want to write fantasy, please, by all means. Scenario to me implies a degree of plausibility, & most of them seem to be discussing future actions:

"scenario
noun [ C ]

US

/səˈner.i.oʊ/ UK

/sɪˈnɑː.ri.əʊ/

plural scenarios

"scenario noun [C] (POSSIBLE EVENT)​

C2
"a description of possible actions or events in the future:
There are several possible scenarios.
a horrific/nightmare scenario such as a Third World War
See also
worst-case scenario
More examples
(My emphasis. From https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/scenario)

There is simply nothing plausible about counterfactuals - events didn't occur in the sequence or with the timing that would/might have been convenient for the sequence of events you were invoking.
 
If you want to write fantasy, please, by all means. Scenario to me implies a degree of plausibility, & most of them seem to be discussing future actions:

"scenario
noun [ C ]

US

/səˈner.i.oʊ/ UK

/sɪˈnɑː.ri.əʊ/

plural scenarios

"scenario noun [C] (POSSIBLE EVENT)​

C2
"a description of possible actions or events in the future:
There are several possible scenarios.
a horrific/nightmare scenario such as a Third World War
See also
worst-case scenario
More examples
(My emphasis. From https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/scenario)

There is simply nothing plausible about counterfactuals - events didn't occur in the sequence or with the timing that would/might have been convenient for the sequence of events you were invoking.

It says it's a "scenario" in the first post!


lol


.
 
Back
Top Bottom