US sends no men to WWII

NapoleonXIV

Banned
WI the US sent no men, or very, very few, to fight in WWII. The US sends materials and supplies aplenty, but mainly decides that men, and esp the expense, food etc that they would require, are better spent on the atom bomb, development of which becomes the main US contribution to the war, which ends with its dropping in mid 1944.

Assuming this happens, however improbable, how does this effect WWII itself and subsequent history?

Please don't say this is ASB, it may be implausible, but so was WWII.
 

Zyzzyva

NapoleonXIV said:
WI the US sent no men, or very, very few, to fight in WWII. The US sends materials and supplies aplenty, but mainly decides that men, and esp the expense, food etc that they would require, are better spent on the atom bomb, development of which becomes the main US contribution to the war, which ends with its dropping in mid 1944.

Assuming this happens, however improbable, how does this effect WWII itself and subsequent history?

Please don't say this is ASB, it may be implausible, but so was WWII.
Click to expand...

Stalin and Churchill both throw apoplectic fits.
 

bard32

Banned
NapoleonXIV said:
WI the US sent no men, or very, very few, to fight in WWII. The US sends materials and supplies aplenty, but mainly decides that men, and esp the expense, food etc that they would require, are better spent on the atom bomb, development of which becomes the main US contribution to the war, which ends with its dropping in mid 1944.

Assuming this happens, however improbable, how does this effect WWII itself and subsequent history?

Please don't say this is ASB, it may be implausible, but so was WWII.
Click to expand...

Charles Lindbergh, the Lone Eagle, and Lucky Lindy, were his two nicknames.
He didn't want us to send anyone to World War II. He said that the Jews were
the ones who wanted to send us to World War II. Before Pearl Harbor, the
American people wouldn't stand for us sending men to World War II. After Pearl Harbor, the American people couldn't stand us not sending men to World War II. Britain, IMNHO, would have lost.
 

Something

NapoleonXIV said:
WI the US sent no men, or very, very few, to fight in WWII. The US sends materials and supplies aplenty, but mainly decides that men, and esp the expense, food etc that they would require, are better spent on the atom bomb, development of which becomes the main US contribution to the war, which ends with its dropping in mid 1944.

Assuming this happens, however improbable, how does this effect WWII itself and subsequent history?

Please don't say this is ASB, it may be implausible, but so was WWII.
Click to expand...

Oh but this is ASB Napoleon. How do you expect Americans with all their rightous patriotism let over 2,000 of their fellow countymen die in vain. Also to me WW2 wasn't all that implausible, especially with the way the first world war ended.
 

FloRida

Fortunately for the Japanese the US has no means of hitting its main land with an atomic bomb with no airbases close enough to hit the home islands. And with the abilty to produce only a handfull of nukes for the first couple of years I don't see any use of tactical nukes in the pacific war unless it was against a naval target. There would be absolutely no need to use it on Germany.

The USSR still would have ended up defeating the germans but it would have been a tougher fight without the Invasion of Normandy to secure western europe from the soviets, and instead of there being seperate germanys there would have been just a communist one. It is possible the soviets take france also. They would be building up there navy greatly after all of Europe was essentially theirs.

Japan conquers the pacific, china, burma, they would have atleast made it to India. They would be leading down to a showdown with the Soviets which I think they would try and avoid at this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top