Help support TMP

POLL: An Isolationist President in 1940

99 votes were cast.

Back to POLLS home page

Covert Walrus writes:

I'm going with other.

There's been a recent move towards downplaying both the non-American allies acheivements in WW2 ( Notably peopel who claim the Battle Of Britain was won by the weather not any ability on the RAF's part, and the general lack of communications between arms of the German military wrecking a decisive assault on England )and American forces acheivements in the European theatre ( As one perosn said to me just recently "The Yanks would have lost the Battle of The Bulge just as they would have lost the War of Independence for exactly the same reason They needed French troops in both cases" :( ).
Nevertheless, a German victory by force of arms in Europe with an Isolationist US is still unlikely given other factors IMHO: American *citizens* fought in Europe long before the country entered the war, and like the Spanish Civil war you could imagine that growing if iaolationism continued, though you could also see Bund volunteers as well. Failing to follow trhough on the crippling of London by the late May '41 blitz and turning to attack Russia is a move that sealed that in reality, and even without American aid to Russia, the Germans would have still exhausted tehmselves trying to defeat the Soviets to continue to hold their European conquest, even assuming England just sat tight.
Take into consideration too that the impossible struggle against the Soviet Union was a big part of the general's revolt known as Operation Valkyrie, and if that HAD succeeded, we would have seen a possible Germanic militarized Western Europe, assuming that the SS and the Nazis didn't turn on the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe and Kreigsmarine, and thus we could ahve seen a new form of Prussian-style union.
Of course, this doesn't figure into things Pearl Harbour; Given that the US would have responded to what was all but a direct attack on US soil, under all but the most improbable situations ( Namely Congress beign swayed by one single person look up who voted against declaring war on Japan ), the Pacific war becomes pretty much the major struggle for the Us and in such a case of isoltaionism an almost totally US/ Japanese fight; The rmenats of European settelemanst like Singapore, Dutch New Guinea, and teh Austaralian and New Zealand countires ( Though part of the Commonwealth ) would be divied as to their strtegic and tactical response, but froma pragnatic viewpoint woudl have had to joined int he fight alongside US forces and not gotten involved in the European theatre ( In fact, it would have been damn near impossible for them to have done so logistically without the US supplying some transport and protection, assuming no other changes. )
This does lead to a real wild card, once tackled by Turtledove; What about India, the hugely populated, well-resourced if not technically advanced English colony with a lot of resentment for England? Could the Nazi sympathisers of western India have fought the English loyalists and Indian independents to a standstill and linked up with Germany? Would they have been a long-term gaol for a Nazi Greater Duetschland to deal with?

Back to the Homepage

Areas of Interest

World War Two on the Land

459 hits since 27 Feb 2019
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

If you were a member of this website, you could participate in website polls. Would you like a free membership?

none of these/no opinion
bar of chart
other (explain)
bar of chart
yes, Germany would have won WWII
bar of chart
this is ridiculous
bar of chart
no, Germany would not have won WWII
bar of chart
If the United States had had an Isolationist president in 1940, would Germany have won WWII?

Poll set up by Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian, based on this pre-poll discussion.