"Where Europe would be today had the US not intervened in WW2" Spare me!!!

Yeah, all i know is that 1974 would have turned out different

TheZhukov wrote:

Assuming Zhukov didn't shoot Stalin and Stauffenberg succeeded

The presence of a US counterbalance also prevented japan from invading the Union.

The USA's presence in the war saved millions of Chinese, indonesians, Soviets, British and other nationalities' civilians.

If anything. The Munich agreement should not have been agreed. Everyone should've attacked and deposed Hitler in 1938. Did they not respect the dead of the Great War?

They didn’t want to repeat the war, and thought that Germany would back down. I mean who be stupid enough to attack two great powers that defeated you again, especially when you restricted their military and reduced their countries size? Just let them have some German populated land, and move on. Another pointless war would achieve nothing!

They were wrong.

Carking the 6th wrote:

They didn’t want to repeat the war, and thought that Germany would back down. I mean who be stupid enough to attack two great powers that defeated you again, especially when your restricted their military and reduced their size? Just let them have some German populated land, and move on. Another pointless war would achieve nothing!

They were wrong.

Not to mention edward viii after King George died.

Claudio NVKP wrote:

Not to mention edward viii after King George died.

I mean in their eyes (remember that the generation leading fought the First World War in their prime) they were respecting the dead by not starting another huge and pointless war.

Carking the 6th wrote:

Honesty, sure! Germany still would have lost, because the Soviets would have occupied all of Europe, while the commonwealth could barely hope to maybe secure Fr*nce, Africa and the Lowlands. With no nukes and the US doing nothing, the Union could then easily create borders like Eurasia from 1984 with very little resistance, all while also still taking all of Asia from Japan as well. Red world.

Not really, but the Soviets would definitely be stronger and there wouldn’t be much to resist them.

While yes, you can say whatever that Brave New World is better.

But the nations from 1984 is more terrifying realistically, but definitely would not last long because the others are not manipulative maniacs like them.

KaiserOfAnonymous wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

Honesty, sure! Germany still would have lost, because the Soviets would have occupied all of Europe, while the commonwealth could barely hope to maybe secure Fr*nce, Africa and the Lowlands. With no nukes and the US doing nothing, the Union could then easily create borders like Eurasia from 1984 with very little resistance, all while also still taking all of Asia from Japan as well. Red world.

Not really, but the Soviets would definitely be stronger and there wouldn’t be much to resist them.

We would not wany any 1984 nations in reality, ever.While yes, you can say whatever that Brave New World is better.

But the nations from 1984 is more terrifying realistically, but definitely would not last long because the others are not manipulative maniacs like them.

BNW is better

The Soviets managing to annex half of Europe is like them putting on a bomb vest.

That could be interpreted in many ways.

Yes

How did you guys get the ranks of General of the Armies? I'm only Sergeant Major of CoW.

Carking the 6th wrote:

Honesty, sure! Germany still would have lost, because the Soviets would have occupied all of Europe, while the commonwealth could barely hope to maybe secure Fr*nce, Africa and the Lowlands. With no nukes and the US doing nothing, the Union could then easily create borders like Eurasia from 1984 with very little resistance, all while also still taking all of Asia from Japan as well. Red world.

Not really, but the Soviets would definitely be stronger and there wouldn’t be much to resist them.

EVEN THEN, There was a chance Germany could have defeated the US and Commonwealth forces in Europe, and if Spain did join the war, they would be booted from Europe and the war would have continued on for alot longer, giving German tank plants the time to produce more of their deadly effective Heavies and Tank Destroyers, and after the winter they would have pushed into Russia once again, and got to Moscow, and people forget that Japan would go un opposed if not for the US, they would have helped in Europe, which would have decimated all Allied forces.

So much that you just said was completely wrong… the US joined the war AFTER Russia, so whatever you meant there was most likely incorrect. And considering what happened during Kursk, any invasion they foiled after they joined would have been prevented anyway

The USSR never had mostly Sherman tanks. During the was a total of 4,000 were sent at all. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease_Sherman_tanks#:~:text=Under%20Lend%2DLease%2C%204%2C102%20M4A2,sent%20to%20the%20Soviet%20Union.

And considering only a small tiny chunk was sent in 1941/2, it wasn’t much at that time especially. The German forces near Moscow were overstretched and mobile forces, nothing actually capable of really taking the city. Even if they did, it’s a fat myth that the USSR would surrender after Moscow; they could and would fight to the death. It would take pushing all the way to the Urals to really stop the Soviets and even then there would still be some form of raiding. As for Japan, no way. They did not really care of the the Germans. The whole Axis was not really coordinated and everyone in the alliance was looking out for themselves and not a real equal to the allies. Japan had nothing to gain, could not sail that far, and would not stick their neck out for the Germans. Neither would.

The Italian navy already got walloped by The British by then, and would be ineffective in any offensive. Spain was useless in the war and even Hitler knew it, they didn’t have a military that could actually launch an effective attack since they just came out of a civil war. This is the main reason they stayed out.

Germany producing more stuff would not matter, their heavy’s could never be enough and they didn’t have the oil or manpower to use it. Even with bombing the Germans actually didn’t have too much hampering when making tanks irl, it was the manpower and oil to run them that was the problem, and the US not joining wouldn’t solve that.

I’m not 100% sure if you are joking here or not but you are verrrry wrong.

Here is fancy video that addresses many of your points as well!

Fox-Company wrote:

EVEN THEN, There was a chance Germany could have defeated the US and Commonwealth forces in Europe, and if Spain did join the war, they would be booted from Europe and the war would have continued on for alot longer, giving German tank plants the time to produce more of their deadly effective Heavies and Tank Destroyers, and after the winter they would have pushed into Russia once again, and got to Moscow, and people forget that Japan would go un opposed if not for the US, they would have helped in Europe, which would have decimated all Allied forces.

Claudio NVKP wrote:

Fox-Company wrote:

EVEN THEN, There was a chance Germany could have defeated the US and Commonwealth forces in Europe, and if Spain did join the war, they would be booted from Europe and the war would have continued on for alot longer, giving German tank plants the time to produce more of their deadly effective Heavies and Tank Destroyers, and after the winter they would have pushed into Russia once again, and got to Moscow, and people forget that Japan would go un opposed if not for the US, they would have helped in Europe, which would have decimated all Allied forces.

What absolute rubbish.

doesn't look like it, unnoble.