- Joined
- Apr 18, 2010
- Messages
- 14,005
- Reaction score
- 9,380
If Hitler could have focused all of his might on the Eastern front rather than Northern Africa and Western Europe, the Eastern outcome may have changed significantly.
It depends on how quickly the USSR collapsed. If they collapsed in 1942, Germany would negotiate a cease fire as they achieved their goals and that would be it. Germany would be huge and an invasion would be considered impossible. There were no nukes yet.US would had been able to end the war alone, we would probably add a few German cities to the history of real life application of nukes.
I remember people claiming that the "New Silk Road" was about to takeover the world.
It has gotten awefully quiet on that lil project aswell
You are sts because all white "americans" are european colonisators offsprings cos bloodline genetically and there isn't nation genetically called american. Never will be and nothing wrong here....While ofc mindset and culture ofc is different. A lot of good stuff, a lot of bad stuff. The same for Europeans (all white Americans does have european bloodline genetically)...It is nature...
Nukes threat is designed for main stream public called as plebs and ants in some circlesIt depends on how quickly the USSR collapsed. If they collapsed in 1942, Germany would negotiate a cease fire as they achieved their goals and that would be it. Germany would be huge and an invasion would be considered impossible. There were no nukes yet.
solid american self congratulatory thread.
Nope.Soviets did all the dying and fighting. The Battle of Stalingrad was the turning point of the war. But only made possible with US weapons.
I do, i love coming to America. I plan to go to the west side where i've never been, but not for LA, for the Redwoods. Which is why i loved that thread of yours about parks.Yeah, maybe. But I've always sensed you have a soft spot for America - or at least what it used to be (get same vibe from @Cole train). Just look at your own GOATed Suredog user join date.
Yeah, maybe. But I've always sensed you have a soft spot for America - or at least what it used to be (get same vibe from @Cole train). Just look at your own GOATed Suredog user join date.
I do, i love coming to America. I plan to go to the west side where i've never been, but not for LA, for the Redwoods. Which is why i loved that thread of yours about parks.
I got soft spot for usa nature (will probably hike pasific crest trail one day).Same for oceania and africa
Europes nature is so goddam boring, especially central euro where no real wilderness exists and you can probably take bus to the top of the alps
If you're referring to D-Day, that didn't really alter the outcome of WW2, aside from speeding up the end and allowing the West more of a foothold in occupied Germany post-war.
The US was plenty influential however to the Allies winning.
Did US lend-lease pay for that popcorn?Oh boy this is always fun
"Grabs popcorn"
You won't get any argument from me that shortening the war probably saved lives. I've been clear on where I think the US' impact was and that most people in this thread are asking the question without defining what victory or defeat looks like. By outcome I meant victory, not the literal x,y,z happened.I’d say the potential hundreds of thousands (probably more) of people who didn’t die might say it was nice the end of ww2 was hastened by the US invasion.
More to the initial point of the thread that US involvement was key to winning, at the time line witnessed. Which obviously benefited a great many of people; probably included were the Eastern Europeans who apparently say the US involvement was no factor or something.