Weekly Poll Results - Provided that Hitler had kept his pact with Stalin and in

Please wait...

This article was written on an older version of FileFront / GameFront

Formatting may be lacking as a result. If this article is un-readable please report it so that we may fix it.

Published by PKM 14 years ago , last updated 5 years ago

Provided that Hitler had kept his pact with Stalin and in addition, England surrendered; what would the USA do ?

Liberate Eng. & shore up defenses on the US west coast . 25.6% (37)

Only shore up defense on both of the US seaboards . 17.3% (25)

Create a secret pact with Hitler allowing for invasion of USSR, leaving Atlantic nuetral . 15.2% (22)

Create a secret pact with Stalin allowing for repel of Germ. leaving N. Pacific ocean nuetral . 13.8% (20)

Liberate Eng. while also invading USSR east coast enough to create a ''buffer zone'' . 10.4% (15)

Liberate Eng. while also invading USSR east coast . 9% (13)

Call a truce between Ger & USSR creating a stalemate . 8.3% (12)

Total: 144
Start: 03-24-2008 06:29
Last: 03-30-2008 21:58

 #1 - Posted by: Revan91 (Member) on 03-24-2008 at 07:19
Britain was too strong to fall. They even had an empire. But if they did, America would liberate them and get their borders fortified while they prepared for war.

 #2 - Posted by: YGSpider (Member) on 03-24-2008 at 08:47
I think Eng is to hard to invade for america there taskforce wold get bombed Plus uboats would pwn them Russia would fall shortly Cuzz All the british captured tanks and airforce plus there navy germany then would Take out africa and Mid east then pacific and in 2008 I would Be Sitting At a beach ready for there attack Althou hiltler would be dead

 #3 - Posted by: DB16 (Member) on 03-24-2008 at 13:50
this is dumb, i cant even choose usa would surrender

 #4 - Posted by: Eddman162 (Member) on 03-24-2008 at 15:07
#3 - Posted by: DB16 (Member) on 03-24-2008 at 13:50 this is dumb, i cant even choose usa would surrender Response: "The United States surrendering after just losing one ally to Hitler?" That'd be like me dropping out of high school after failing a single EOG(End of Grade Test) AND I'M IN MY FRESHMAN YEAR. In other words "The surrender of the United States is simply NOT a option, Liberate Eng. while also invading USSR east coast enough to create a ''buffer zone''

 #5 - Posted by: franklin41 (Member) on 03-24-2008 at 15:51
Yeah, the USA is too stubborn to surrender anyway. Lol.

 #6 - Posted by: Wundai (Member) on 03-25-2008 at 00:52
I guess this poll includes "And Japan didn't attack pearl harbor"? Well in that case, Free England and shore up the defenses. They wouldn't want to get in the war.

 #7 - Posted by: PATTON_IRL (Member) on 03-26-2008 at 08:03
Isnt it more likely that Britain would not surrender but rather pull back to another country like Ireland or The Azeurez (whether they wanted Britain or not) where the U.S could keep feeding them resourses for an "Overlord" type operation. Afterall isnt this what France did.

 #8 - Posted by: RuhigSein (Member) on 03-27-2008 at 11:30
In that situation, the U.S. would have no choice but to make Alliances. With either Germany, or other powerful nations. U.S. was not that powerful during WW2. Just because we are today, doesn't mean we were during that time. I'm 100% sure United Kingdom, Germany, Soviet Union, Japan, or France could HANDLE U.S. with ease, in a One on One fight.

 #9 - Posted by: PKM (Staff) on 03-27-2008 at 11:44
[quote]I'm 100% sure United Kingdom, Germany, Soviet Union, Japan, or France could HANDLE U.S. with ease, in a One on One fight.[/quote] wow .

 #10 - Posted by: Schutze (Member) on 03-27-2008 at 16:54
america would be screwed end of story japs from the west, krauts from the east... russia would develop an a-bomb and blow the center : )

 #11 - Posted by: RuhigSein (Member) on 03-27-2008 at 18:54
#9, In what intentions is that "wow." supposed to mean?

 #12 - Posted by: PKM (Staff) on 03-28-2008 at 07:58
simply dumbfounded by your [u]opinion[/u] .

 #13 - Posted by: RuhigSein (Member) on 03-28-2008 at 08:22
#12, I meant during that time. United States of America was simply not that powerful. I never said they'd conquer U.S. but I did say they would "Handle"(As in, force a stalemate, slaughter invading forces...etc..). And not only it is an opinion, its a logical one from what is "reality", not personal, ignorant, or arrogant judgements.

 #14 - Posted by: PKM (Staff) on 03-28-2008 at 10:27
logical according to which facts ? for starters, even though france was, at the time, considered the strongest european military power, germany (an up and coming army after being dismantled at the end of WWI) waltzed right in . french politics involved in the surrender ? probably but there must have been some knowledge between the french government and the french military leaders leading them to both believe they couldn't handle the germans . japan attacked us as a preemptive , knowing we would attack them , they in no way had the extended resources for any kind of invasion . pearl harbor was always a mere delaying tactic . england ? even with the impressive navy, they couldn't . remember you are stating that england could beat the americans, that means them coming to us . even with their aircraft carriers, they couldn't sustain any airpower as we simply had way too many airfields along the coast . our coastline was to long and populated for an invading army to hold and our resources and reserves could come from further inland . russia ? that's simple . if stalin thought for any moment he could take on the americans for even a square mile, he'd have done it . but with the pacific fleet sitting to the south , the ports along the western coastline along with numerous bases...he knew the deal . this doesn't even include that among the nations who had fought in WWI, we pretty much were the only undamaged one . our military simply went home, it didn't have to be rebuilt, only restocked .

 #15 - Posted by: PKM (Staff) on 03-28-2008 at 11:03
finally sir, your point on your opinion being based on reality is moot and incorrect for in [u]reality[/u] the american military's general was placed in charge of the allied armies and the american armies spearheaded the liberation of europe and in the end, finished the war by winning .

 #16 - Posted by: Eddman162 (Member) on 03-28-2008 at 14:09
:dropsjaw: wow pkm you sound like you know your stuff but back to basics speaking in the Idears of conquest how do YOU think the United states would handled it if England , Germany , Russia AND japan allied against us?

 #17 - Posted by: RuhigSein (Member) on 03-28-2008 at 15:08
#14, The entire thing is your opinion. And are you actually reading everything I said, or trying to start an argument? I never said those nations could Invade us. And I clearly said in a "One on One" fight. Not the currency of what was going on in this history. It's ALL a "What if" situation. If Japan wasn't fighting other nations, and attacked U.S. directly at Pearl Harbor, like it did, and continued from there. There's no way U.S. would of won. United States was just simply not that powerful during that time of history. The way you make it seem is as if America was number 1, and could beat anyone it came across. #15, You're talking about Eisenhower in Operation Overlord. He was the head General incharge of the Operation. Overlord was the liberation of Normandy, by the Allies. A General only gives orders and takes them, he doesn't fight. Other generals from other nations still did their roles in the operation and in the liberation of Europe. And the entire Operation was done by mostly nations that weren't American. They just don't get acknowledged because they're not in important enough for American history. For an example. Canada did more then U.S. in both World Wars. Canada isn't even in the war, according to our non-informing schooling books....... #16, Other alliances; go defensive on the West(Western Continents). Unless America finds some powerful Allies, they'll never win against that force.

 #18 - ... - Posted by: falcon93 (Staff) on 03-28-2008 at 16:30
idk how a simple poll started this but ANYWAYS!!! My schools textbooks include canada :-) lol they just weren't that huge lol. they sent like maybe 100 men. on a one on one fight i think the us might win but compared the other countries we suck economically, WHICH means we probably would lose because we wouldnt be able to make enough weapons :P

 #19 - Posted by: YGSpider (Member) on 03-29-2008 at 05:51
k learn ur facts canada did way more in ww2 From asia to europe we came in 1940's to help england Becasue we where basicly part with them yes Usa mas prodused tanks in 1943-44 for overloard and sent lots of stuff in but there only real acomplishmtent is in pacific i will admit they did lots there but canada fought from africa to normandy in more numbers and for longer + ww1 we here there from beginings

 #20 - Posted by: PATTON_IRL (Member) on 03-29-2008 at 20:25
Id just like to point out to number 17 Ruhigsein that Eisenhower was not in charge of Operation Overlord. That position was given to General Omar Bradley. Yes Eisenhower was head of Allied staff in Europe but Bradley was definitely in charge of Overlord. :beer:

 #21 - Posted by: bbejones (Member) on 03-30-2008 at 07:53
I don't know. I'm not american - I'm Canadian. RuhigSein, sue the people who made your history books. falcon93! Canada is the second biggest country geographically but we don't have as much population. Not as many people want to live in the Territories (They are FREEZING) and Canada doesn't have city everywhere - and lots of people like HUGE cities (I don't know why - i'd move out of mine if I had a chance, though!) and the US has 100000000000 huge cities (I hate huge cities! All the smog...). And (I know this doesn't relate to ww2) Canada repelled the US when they tried invade, around 200 yrs ago.

 #22 - Posted by: salombo (Member) on 03-30-2008 at 08:46
I think you forgot an important piece of the puzzle. Regardless if Japan had attacked Pearl harbor or not, the European Battlefield was motivated by one thing: Germany was a few month from developing long range missiles and developing a nuclear bomb. That was simply unacceptable, that's why the US rushed in with all it's Allies ( including the Mafia network in Italy )to stop that from happening. So in the improbable case set above, the US would've negotiated some sort of deal. Germany had no means to attack the US. Too big, too many infrastructures and don't forget the nuclear arsenal. It would've been the same kind of stalemate that we saw with the USSR.

 #23 - Posted by: salombo (Member) on 03-30-2008 at 08:48
lol won't take ( a.r.s.e.n.a.l) ** :rolleyes:

 #24 - Posted by: RuhigSein (Member) on 03-30-2008 at 09:17
#22, no offense but comments like that gives an example of the average person. People who don't know what they're talking about. But w/e, who am I to change your views? #21, yeah, you try to sue over here in American, especially Corporations; there's no chance you'll win. #20, Eisenhower was incharge of Operation Overlord. Omar Bradley had commanded three corps, and was in charge of Operation Cobra(The breakout of Normandy). Don't forget that Operation Overlord is The Invasion of Normandy, not the Liberation of France.

 #25 - Posted by: salombo (Member) on 03-30-2008 at 09:26
Read your history books carefully ... History is about facts, not views or opinions.

 #26 - Posted by: salombo (Member) on 03-30-2008 at 09:33
Here are 2 quick links, but i recommend books ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_energy_project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun

 #27 - Posted by: RuhigSein (Member) on 03-30-2008 at 10:13
To salombo, Germany was developing Vril disk(Beamships), and Long-Range Rockets like V1s and V2s. The Nuclear bomb your talking about is the same activity of the Atom Bomb, by the Americans. Many countries were already messing with such material. German Engineering was 10 years ahead of the rest of the world. Germany was the first to develope "Vril Disk", which Brazil and North America copied after WW2, giving them a minor advantage over the Soviet Union when it came to technology. The United States didn't rush into anything. They were forced into the war, by impatient Allies, and Japan and Germany pretty much declaring war on them. And, if Germany ever managed to conquer the Eastern Hemisphere, there's no chance for a Western survival. But that's only in a "What If" terms.

 #28 - lol - Posted by: falcon93 (Staff) on 03-30-2008 at 13:40
#21 we didnt invade... England did. We got help from you 200 years ago to repel the english :-). Canada had the best Tank corps in WW2 next to the black corps, not a joke. Canada did have the best infintry though.

Comments on this Article

There are no comments yet. Be the first!