The US could of ended the War earliers

[LtSounders]

The United States only enterted world war 2 after attacked at Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941, all though the outbreak of war was in September 1939. It seems all the allied nation at the time declared war with england including, Canada, France etc... Though after ww1 the US policy was not to enter into European affairs. I argue that if the US entered the War it could of saved a lot of lives.

[Billy The Mountain]

Yeah and we should always run to interfere in others problems? Not to mention we are cursed and spit at for all of our help.

Just look at the cowardly ingrates like the french and many other nations and most of them still owe us Millions of $$$

And as I posted before we were helping! It is because of our contribution through the efforts and sheer bravery of the merchant marine and their sacrifice of blood and supplies that England and the allies were able to stand untill we entered the fray.

[LtSounders]

Oh boy oh boy! Contributing the complete succes of England's hold to te US and there merchant marine. Open your eyes! WHAT ABOUT CAMADA!? The ones who at the outbreak of the war where suplying England with needed suplies, and where a main manufaturing and training ground for the brits. The Canadians where the ones who supplied trained pilots in the Battle of Britain.
Though we needed the US to win world war 2, as we needed the Brits, the French, the Australians and Canadians. May I remind you Canada hit the beaches on D-Day, that Canada sent the 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion into France during D-Day, or that the Canadians fought in Italy, the Canadians fought at Hong- Kong, and entered Germany.
No, Britains stand against Germany was not contributed to JUST the United States, but the allies as a whole!

[Billy The Mountain]

As I have said in several previous posts the allies with the obvious exception of the useless french fought bravely.

However Canada had no industrial complex to even come close to supplying the huge ammount of goods needed for the war effort.

Also open your eyes and read a bit of history and you will find out that the total ammount of ship tonnage sank in the war was by far and over MERCHANT MARINE.

Their losses were more than the combined tonnage of all the warships sank during the war.

Look up the mass produt shipped and you will see that just a few States of the USA turned out more gross output than the whole of Canada, UK and Australia and New Zealand together!

And since Canada was still very closely tied to the UK it was (and is in most historians books) a satelite and included in the UK as a whole.


Lets look at facts.


The entire European continent was defeated. france gave up without a fight basically and was responsible for the slaughter at Dunkirk.

Nowhere was the German army even threatned and untill the intervention of the USA even the Russians were no threat at all to the Germans.

The japs had big plans to invade Australia and New Zealand and ruled the oceans compleatly if not for the USA.

Like I said I am not taking away the heroic acts and bravery of any of the allies (with exception of the afore mentioned french and largely the Russians too) as here in Montana we joint trained special forces from Canada and the USA.

Not to mention that there were a lot of Americans in the RAF before the USA got involved officially, and since you bring it up so often I will tell you that for every Canadian division there were 20 American divisions.


Taken from web site

http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm (http://www.codboards.com/redirect.php?http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm)


On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 43,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.

Casualties” refers to all losses suffered by the armed forces: killed, wounded, missing in action (meaning that their bodies were not found) and prisoners of war. There is no "official" casualty figure for D-Day. Under the circumstances, accurate record keeping was very difficult. For example, some troops who were listed as missing may actually have landed in the wrong place, and have rejoined their parent unit only later.

In April and May 1944, the Allied air forces lost nearly 12,000 men and over 2,000 aircraft in operations which paved the way for D-Day.

Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead. British casualties on D-Day have been estimated at approximately 2700. The Canadians lost 946 casualties. The US forces lost 6603 men. Note that the casualty figures for smaller units do not always add up to equal these overall figures exactly, however (this simply reflects the problems of obtaining accurate casualty statistics).

Casualties on the British beaches were roughly 1000 on Gold Beach and the same number on Sword Beach. The remainder of the British losses were amongst the airborne troops: some 600 were killed or wounded, and 600 more were missing; 100 glider pilots also became casualties. The losses of 3rd Canadian Division at Juno Beach have been given as 340 killed, 574 wounded and 47 taken prisoner.

The breakdown of US casualties was 1465 dead, 3184 wounded, 1928 missing and 26 captured. Of the total US figure, 2499 casualties were from the US airborne troops (238 of them being deaths). The casualties at Utah Beach were relatively light: 197, including 60 missing. However, the US 1st and 29th Divisions together suffered around 2000 casualties at Omaha Beach.

Taken fromm web site http://www.cbc.ca/news/dday/ (http://www.codboards.com/redirect.php?http://www.cbc.ca/news/dday/)

During the first six days of the Normandy campaign, 1,017 Canadians died. By the end of the Normandy campaign, about 5,020 Canadians had been killed. About 5,400 Canadians are buried in Normandy.

[Kingox]

Originally posted by LtSounders@Jan 29 2004, 05:58 PM
I argue that if the US entered the War it could of saved a lot of lives.
Or cost many more.....

The japs had big plans to invade Australia and New Zealand and ruled the oceans compleatly if not for the USA. What I have been learnt in class, is that is not ture. It was thought at that time that they would have, And it they did bomb darwin and get a Sub into sydney habour, But it was unlikly that they would have, There was no real reason for them to. Then again my teachers could have been wrong.

[Blade]

Don't mess with this boy Sounders, he knows his history ;)

The United States only enterted world war 2 after attacked at Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941, all though the outbreak of war was in September 1939. It seems all the allied nation at the time declared war with england including, Canada, France etc... Though after ww1 the US policy was not to enter into European affairs. I argue that if the US entered the War it could of saved a lot of lives.

Firstly, the United States didn't enter the war because they had isolationist policies emplaced.

If the United States had entered the war from the very beginning, they wouldn't have made nearly as much of an impact. Once the war began, the United States were gradually expanding their military and mass-producing weapons of war. When the Pearl Harbour attack took place, the US were much stronger than they were at the start of the war.

Oh boy oh boy! Contributing the complete succes of England's hold to te US and there merchant marine. Open your eyes! WHAT ABOUT CAMADA!? The ones who at the outbreak of the war where suplying England with needed suplies, and where a main manufaturing and training ground for the brits. The Canadians where the ones who supplied trained pilots in the Battle of Britain.
Though we needed the US to win world war 2, as we needed the Brits, the French, the Australians and Canadians. May I remind you Canada hit the beaches on D-Day, that Canada sent the 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion into France during D-Day, or that the Canadians fought in Italy, the Canadians fought at Hong- Kong, and entered Germany.
No, Britains stand against Germany was not contributed to JUST the United States, but the allies as a whole!

Basically what Billy said. The Canadians contributed, but the Americans and the British were the key players in the war. Canadian fought on one front on D-Day, while the US and British fought on 4 other fronts.

As an Australian, I was taught in class (Primary School) that the Japanese were going to invade Australia, but then again, primary school teachers over here are pretty unintelligent people. I don't see why Japan would have gone to the trouble of invading a large country like Australia, instead of focusing on a stronger and more powerful foe such as the Americans.

Of course, the other Allies fought bravely (Excluding the French, of course... cowards), but they are being overestimated. American and Britain were the two main powers in the war.

I would also like to point out how hopeless the Italians were. In one stage of the war, a bunch of Australian soldiers managed to hold back the entire Italian army with rifles and a light field gun :lol: - it turned out that the Italians were going to call in the airfoce to destroy where the Australians were emplaced, but the airforce were busy, so the Italians could do nothing :lol:

[LtSounders]

My boy my boy, as I have admitted the US did contribute a lot, but Canada per capita contributed more and played a large role to allied victory. Canada, a Nation of 15 million Contributed 1 million men to the War effort. By the end of WW2 Canada had the third largest Navy in the World. And the nerve of someone to insult the French to such a great extent, pardon me but I would like to see forces of the US defend France still using WW1 tactics. The blitzkrieg was a first of it's kind and the naive allies where still fighting trench warfare with the Maginot Line, the Germans easily parachuted behind etc... Though great US victories are contributed to the defeat of many Allies.
Take Dieppe, 1942... the first lead European amphibious assault on Occupied main land Europe, in which 4,963 Canadians 1,075 British Commandoes and 50 US Rangers, attacked the French coast, it was a total disaster! Though the information brought back was invaluable, if it weren’t for Dieppe D-Day would of been a disaster as with Sicily. After Dieppe the Allies lost the strategy to attack a port head on, thus resulting in building the "floating ports" which where used on D-Day.

To the issue of the merchant marine now, "Canada's merchant navy suffered higher casualty rates than the Army, Navy or Air Force. Some 67 Canadian merchant marine ships were sunk during the war, mostly by German U-boats in 1942. Of Canada's 12,000 mariners, approximately 1,146 were killed, along with 203 Newfoundlanders (who were not yet Canadians.)" (CBC ARCHIVES).

"The United States Merchant Marine provided the greatest sealift in history between the production army at home and the fighting forces scattered around the globe in World War II. The prewar total of 55,000 experienced mariners was increased to over 215,000 through U.S. Maritime Service training programs."
(http://www.usmm.org/ww2.html)

Though the number differ substantially as you have mentioned, though Canada and the allies provided enough power to the allied armies before the US entered

As you will see at this chart at http://www.usmm.org/ww2.html (http://www.codboards.com/redirect.php?http://www.usmm.org/ww2.html) from "The Oxford Companion to World War 2"

No doubt Canada had a smaller contribution then the US but yet very valuable, I believe this is due to the training given to Canadian Soldiers, when war was declared thousands had enlisted and had 3 more years to train compared to the quick training of the US regular Soldier.

This is a debatably topic, though your insult to the Russians of doing little is disgraceful, may I remind you that they fought on a front solo, while the combined forces of the Allies had there own,

LETS LOOK AT THE FACTS!

50 million people died in ww2, 13.7 million where Russian military casualties, not including civilians! Which where about another 7 million. The Russian casualties where more then all the allies combined, whether this was caused to there terrible training etc... They still held up there own front. The total Axis casualties where 5,360,200.
OPEN YOUR EYES THE RUSSIANS DID A LOT!

SOURCE
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/L...ties-by-country (http://www.codboards.com/redirect.php?http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/List-of-World-War-II-casualties-by-country)

[Mr. bean]

My friend its over LtSounders has just a$$ raped everyone who disagreed with him just stop its over congratz Sounders Canada did contribute alot due to the fact it was still apart of England. But good job...

[Mr. bean]

Listen my friends America in the Case of WWII did contribute alot It was a compound thing that happend. Lets say england wasn't around Germany would have had no problems in europe (alot of problems where caused by the british) and if there wasn't russia no one would have broke into Germany and if there wasn't USA Germany ITALY (which was barely mentioned in the enitre debate) and Japan would have certaintly ruled the world. If there wasn't canada there would be alot more financial struggle for UK and if there wasn't france there would be no one to even hold off Germany (Germany spent time and money for a puppet Regime Vichy France). I see it to no one should get credits to WWII. The credit for who won world war 2 are the men who faught in the war, the men who died, and the men who lived to today to still teach. War is something not to be proud of for no country should have the honor of ending a war for the country sits on its a$$ and the politicians wait for reports but the men whom where drafted and whom gave there lifes, Those my friends are the real victors.

[Billy The Mountain]

I want to try to keep all of the emotionial drivel out of this thread if at all possible.

And I am going to address a few things that have been thrown in my face (providing I can follow the thread of thought)

First of all Sounders all of your hysterical blathering really does NOT change a thing!

As said by Ltsounders:
I would like to see forces of the US defend France still using WW1 tactics. The blitzkrieg was a first of it's kind and the naive allies where still fighting trench warfare with the Maginot Line, the Germans easily parachuted behind etc...

First of all America or the UK or even the Canadians would have fallen back and regrouped to defend paris.

NOt only did the panzy french NOT try to regroup and defend, they submitted like the mongrel dogs they truley are and bowed down to the nazis.

And in all virtual reality gave them the keys to france and opened the door to thousand of British and allied troops being massacred at Dunkirk.

On top of that lets look at the history of france. They have not had a real army of thier own for many centuries. At least not one that was effective in any way since the middle ages.

Even Napolean was not french but rather an Austrian. And is it a coincidence? That the most formidible fighting force that they have been able to muster is the french Foriegn Legion?


So to sum it all up about france allow me to link to a great site

http://www.francesucks.com/

According to the American Battle Monuments Commission
There are 26,255 Yankee dead from World War I buried in 4 cemeteries in France.
There are 30,426 American dead from World War II buried in 6 cemeteries in France.
These 56,681 brave American heroes died in their youth to liberate a country
which is guilty of shameful unspeakable behavior in the 21st century.

France Sucks.....plain and simple! They are NO FRIENDS and they have stabbed us in the back and now even spied on us!
We will NEVER forget this.

As said by Ltsounders:

The blitzkrieg was a first of it's kind and the naive allies where still fighting trench warfare

If you had bothered to read my previous posts (which obviously you did not) I pointed out the Spanish cival war was when the First blitz tactics were used
http://www.codboards.com/index.php?showtop...findpost&p=2554 (http://www.codboards.com/redirect.php?http://www.codboards.com/index.php?showtopic=208&view=findpost&p=2554)

As said by Ltsounders:

Though great US victories are contributed to the defeat of many Allies

If anyone can decipher this I would be gratefull

I am asking you sounders to go back and start at the beginning of this thread and read to present... Then make a post without any emotionial hype and lets stick to facts.

About the russians I will try and explain to you once again.

First of all Stalin was responsible for killing more of the Russian people than Hitler was or at least as many.

Stalin had over 12 million jews killed outright (true at least he didnt torture them he just outright killed them!) and he was well known for killing anybody he didnt like (which was allmost everyone)

He even imprisoned his own son and his family for loosing a battle and surviving it!

He was allied with Germany from the beginning of WWII ( however pre-WWII he was shipping supplies to Spain against Germany as I have previously posted) and merely rode the coat-tails of the Whermacht for all he could get.

As I posted before Russia had the largest horse calvery in the world at the beginning of WWII NO navy, and NO airforce!

Germany took over all the countries between itself and Russia and left Stalin set up as a puppet regime after.

Then knowing the two faced worm Stalin really was, Hitler attacked and easily kicked Ruskie butt all the way to Stalingrad (at which time the USA and the UK intervened) This also I have given a time line to in a previous post.

If not for the intervention of the USA and the UK Russia would have been obliverated. Especially as the Japs would have been in the back door in a major way as there was already a history of hostilities streching back for quite some time between Nipon and Mother Russia.

And as I posted before if not for the USA and the UK the whole world would be speaking German or japanese

[LtSounders]

To begin I will address your point on the French being so called "pansy". The French had terrible tactics but did fight and had a powerful army that could have been used more effective, they did not hand over France! For example,” At the outbreak of World War II the Wehrmacht was still in a reorganizing phase and in 1940, at the beginning of the Blitzkrieg against France, the French army still had more tanks than the Wehrmacht." (http://groups.msn.com/2ndUSCav/ww2germancav.msnw) though the French had more tanks they where still using ww1 tactics with tanks not being used as large scale units but as infantry support. The French put much man power and faith in the Maginot line as a defense against Germany, " The German invasion plan of 1940 (Sichelschnitt) was designed to deal with the Line. A decoy force sat opposite the Line while a second Army Group cut through the Low Countries of Belgium and the Netherlands, as well as through the Ardennes Forest which lay north of the main French defenses. Thus the Germans were able to avoid assaulting the Maginot Line directly." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line) As you can see the French where not cowards but poorly led.
The French where not cowards with an army in excess of 1.5 million, "...1.5 million French soldiers captured by the Germans were to remain prisoners of war." (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FRresistance.htm)

Secondly the French where an outstanding contribution to there own liberation, the French Resistance where the ones who began the liberation of Paris, and fead English intelligence valuable information for D-Day. I quote Dwight Eisenhower 'Throughout France the Resistance had been of inestimable value in the campaign. Without their great assistance the liberation of France would have consumed a much longer time and meant greater losses to ourselves."
Please do not insult the French people, the where miss lead, not cowards or so called "pansys".

Secondly, you often refer to the "Slaughter at Dunkirk", which was infact a fair military success, "The mass was some 300,000 French and British troops-squeezed into a seven - mile - wide perimeter around the French port by advancing Germans.", " Virtually all of the evacuation casualties came either from German bombs and shells on the beach, or from the sinking of rescue ships.", "However, to the amazement of the Allies-and the frustration of the besieging Germans-almost all the evacuees reached Britain." (http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/text/x18/xm1848.html"

The loss of France as I have mentioned was contributed to the use of ww1 tactics and the unexpected use of the Blitzkrieg. You have stated that the Spanish Civil war was truly a first Blitzkrieg, tehcnically the first blitzkriegs where used on small scale by the Germans in ww1, though they were not effective enough to change any course of the war, though on a large scale the Spanish Civil war was in fact a blitzkrieg but not as a mass as the Blitzkriegs of ww2. During the Spanish Civil War the Germans coud not employ masses of German vehicles.

Indeed, Stalin was a mad mann though no doubt we needed him to win the war as I have previously stated. Stalin’s killings where not as large scale as Hitlers.

http://www.maloca.com/katyn.htm (http://www.codboards.com/redirect.php?http://www.maloca.com/katyn.htm)

Never the less Russians where terribly brutal, but a main contributor to the success of ww2..

[Billy The Mountain]

There is an old question How many frenchies does it take to defend paris?
Answer: Nobody knows as it has never been done!

The french capitulated almost immediatly and offered a bare show of resistance before handing over the miserable country to the nazis.

And yes after the SS and other social clubs of the nazis got into france and started there programs, then the french underground started to really get going. However even a cornered rat will fight tooth and nail.

The vaunted maginot line is a moot point as the fortresses were merely skipped in much the same way as the USA skipped islands while beating the japs.

The point being they did not fight!

It is common knowlege, and the only thing that the french are known to be outstanding for is being
Unbathed!


Assaid by Ltsounders:

You often refer to the "Slaughter at Dunkirk", which was infact a fair military success,

I really dont know what history books you read but Dunkirk was a disaster in lost supplies and lives.

And all due to the cowardly surrender of the french so quickly to the nazis. Allowing them to move immediatly and unmolested through france.

As said by Ltsounders:

Please do not insult the French people, the where miss lead, not cowards or so called "pansys".

Anyone who says Htilers action can be excused is an insult to Mankind .Hitler is a crazed murderer, ubsessed with racial domination. Hitler was responsable for the death of over 6 millions Jews. Hitler was not all responsable for the second world war, the German people as a whole where also responsable, they elcected Hitler ( all though only by one vote), they where passive enough not to make a stand, they followed with his plans

Seems you have a double standard.

If the french were not cowards they would stand up today and renounce their governmental leaders and appoligize to the world for supporting terrorists organizations.


Want to find out more of the TRUTH about the french??

http://www.francesucks.com/

The only reason the russians were able to do anything at all is because the USA and the UK supported them. Otherwise they would have been terribly and miserably DEFEATED

[LtSounders]

The french had a will to fight and that's what counts. They fought when they could, I will no longer mindlessly argue with someone who's views will not chgange. Saying the French where cowardly is a dirgrace when the US did not enter the War until 42? I'm not calling the US cowards, but at least the French stood up right away and held there end of the bargain.

And I do not have a doublle standard, as you can see the French did oppose Hitler?! I fail to see you point?
Though your arguments are just and I suppose opinions are opinions...

[Legendary_Soldier]

Originally posted by LtSounders@Jan 31 2004, 09:43 PM
To begin I will address your point on the French being so called "pansy". The French had terrible tactics but did fight and had a powerful army that could have been used more effective, they did not hand over France! For example,” At the outbreak of World War II the Wehrmacht was still in a reorganizing phase and in 1940, at the beginning of the Blitzkrieg against France, the French army still had more tanks than the Wehrmacht." (http://groups.msn.com/2ndUSCav/ww2germancav.msnw) though the French had more tanks they where still using ww1 tactics with tanks not being used as large scale units but as infantry support. The French put much man power and faith in the Maginot line as a defense against Germany, " The German invasion plan of 1940 (Sichelschnitt) was designed to deal with the Line. A decoy force sat opposite the Line while a second Army Group cut through the Low Countries of Belgium and the Netherlands, as well as through the Ardennes Forest which lay north of the main French defenses. Thus the Germans were able to avoid assaulting the Maginot Line directly." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line) As you can see the French where not cowards but poorly led.
The French where not cowards with an army in excess of 1.5 million, "...1.5 million French soldiers captured by the Germans were to remain prisoners of war." (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FRresistance.htm)

Secondly the French where an outstanding contribution to there own liberation, the French Resistance where the ones who began the liberation of Paris, and fead English intelligence valuable information for D-Day. I quote Dwight Eisenhower 'Throughout France the Resistance had been of inestimable value in the campaign. Without their great assistance the liberation of France would have consumed a much longer time and meant greater losses to ourselves."
Please do not insult the French people, the where miss lead, not cowards or so called "pansys".

Secondly, you often refer to the "Slaughter at Dunkirk", which was infact a fair military success, "The mass was some 300,000 French and British troops-squeezed into a seven - mile - wide perimeter around the French port by advancing Germans.", " Virtually all of the evacuation casualties came either from German bombs and shells on the beach, or from the sinking of rescue ships.", "However, to the amazement of the Allies-and the frustration of the besieging Germans-almost all the evacuees reached Britain." (http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/text/x18/xm1848.html"

The loss of France as I have mentioned was contributed to the use of ww1 tactics and the unexpected use of the Blitzkrieg. You have stated that the Spanish Civil war was truly a first Blitzkrieg, tehcnically the first blitzkriegs where used on small scale by the Germans in ww1, though they were not effective enough to change any course of the war, though on a large scale the Spanish Civil war was in fact a blitzkrieg but not as a mass as the Blitzkriegs of ww2. During the Spanish Civil War the Germans coud not employ masses of German vehicles.

Indeed, Stalin was a mad mann though no doubt we needed him to win the war as I have previously stated. Stalin’s killings where not as large scale as Hitlers.

http://www.maloca.com/katyn.htm (http://www.codboards.com/redirect.php?http://www.maloca.com/katyn.htm)

Never the less Russians where terribly brutal, but a main contributor to the success of ww2..
Dude. Shut up. You have no clue what you are saying. And do you even know what the a blitzkreig is?

The French just tucked their tails between their legs and whined. And don't get me started on he uselessness of the Underground.

[LtSounders]

LikeDude I have an obvious clue what I'm saying,

Blitzkreig: LIGHTNING WAR, a startegy mainly used by the axis in ww2 which is to attack a country fast, swift and smoothly to gain suprise and a military advantage. A blitz must destroy enemy communications and use speed, speed is important!

A blitzkreig is implied by paratroopers behind enemy lines,motorized infantry and tanks, and a bombardment of tanks and air supported infantry all to gain a quick attack in which the enemy has no time to regroup it's defenses, that is why France fell in 6 weeks, why Poland only fought the invasion for 35 days, and why the early stages of the Eastern campagne where such a succes for the Axis.

Don't trust my definition :huh:: , check out
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/blitz.htm (http://www.codboards.com/redirect.php?http://www.achtungpanzer.com/blitz.htm)
for more information on the Blitzkreig

[Mr. bean]

I think when LtSounders stated the Blitzkrieg being the first of it's kind he was defineltly right. Though it was used in Spain, the German blitzkrieg was much much larger and swifter.

[Teufel]

If the United States had entered the war from the very beginning, they wouldn't have made nearly as much of an impact. Once the war began, the United States were gradually expanding their military and mass-producing weapons of war. When the Pearl Harbour attack took place, the US were much stronger than they were at the start of the war.

Blade hits the nail on the head with that one and I'm afraid LtSounders, you show a rather strong ignorance when it comes to America's military strength at the outbreak of WW2. Even if Americans in general wanted to aid the Allies, the simple fact of the matter is they had no real military to do it with! After WW1, America let its military atrophy terribly. Mix that in with the Great Depression, which Nazi Germany had pulled itself out of while America was still in it, and America needed those years to actually build a powerful military.

[LtSounders]

I'll desagree with that because Canada for example entered ww2 with only 2 ships from ww1 in the Navy and ended the war with the worlds third largest navy. The states could have done the same by entering the war earlier. Also the US would most likely not have been fighting Japan at the time due to Japans higher resource of oil in 39, the US woul have been able to focus more attention in Europe and end the war earlier. All though I suppose it's a mater of opinion because no one can accuratly depict a alternate history. Though I stand by my point that most likely the states could possibly ended the war earlier... maybe hitler would have not attacked France :no: if he new he would be dealing with yet another superpower.

[imported_Shaggy]

My feelings on this is:

We should enter only if we were attacked, or if we were threated of an attack.

I don't think we could have saved lives if we entered the war earlier. Hitlers forces were simply to powerful. He was pushing all the allied forces back, and he was holding his own.

I think if we had entered the war earlier, we would have worn our troops out by 1945. And the war wouldn't have ended any earlier even if we had entered earlier, because its automatley the Atomic Bomb which ended the war.

The A-Bomb project wasn't started until 1943. If we had entered earlier, granted we may have started the production of the A-bomb a little earlier would still have dropped it sometime in 1945.

The two lead Nuclear Physisits on the project was Dr. Merryman and Dr. Openhymier. They didn'y know anything of the project when they were first shipped to New Mexico to start it. At the Trinity site where the bomb was built, they learned of there project, and were told they have 19 months to for the A-Bombs Completion. During this time, they had no idea of how to slice an atom in half, and compress the Uranium 235 and later Plutonium just right to get the explosion.

So overall I don't think it would have saved any lives if we entered the war earlier to answer whoevers question.

I started to get a little off topic with the whole A-Bomb thing. If you want to know more about it all just PM me and I'll tell you the rest.