This poll has nothing to do with American arrogance or patriotism. As many here know, my own personal knowledge and expertise on WWII is, shall we say, lacking ...and we'll leave it at that...

...and this is the section I wanted the Poll in btw...Conspiracies and Secret Societies...

This poll is really only for the informed...those of you who DO know your history on WWII...and I want you to be truthful in your answer, based on your knowledge, not sentiment of any other kind. The same question could be asked of any other country involved in the war...but this thread is concerned only with the question of American involvment.

Well since WW I and WW II were started by the Zionists to help them obtain Palestine and establish the state of Israel they've had this all planned out for a long time. They used the US as their secret weapon in both wars since they control the US as they control the Federal Reserve and the media.

Please.........just answer the poll...I am not entertaining conspiracies as to WHY we were at WWII...don't make this difficult.

you have to admit, that was a pretty entertaining little fairy tale right there

I don't claim to be a historian so I won't feel offended if someone drives big holes through my arguments.

I voted for option B. as it was the closest to what I believe but I don't think it is that simple. I actually think it would have been a close run thing.

I think that the Nazi's had the ability to conquer Europe. However Hitler had made some major mistakes before the USA joined the war. His failure to push home his advantage and invade Britain when we were vulnerable was a huge mistake. Opening up a second front against the Soviet Union was another huge mistake. Given these mistakes I believe that Britain and the Soviet Union may (and emphasis on the may) have been able to defeat the Nazi's with out US help.

However, as we are effectively talking about an alternative history, if Hitler had listened to his generals, finished off Britain and only when that task was completed turn his attention on the Soviet Union then I suspect I would Europe would have fallen easily and I would be a German speaker.

It is all speculation so there is no way to know for sure. We only have the recorded history to draw our guesses from, and even at that we do not really know what was going on behind the scenes with hitler and his thought process in regards to the US entering the war...

That being said, my personal belief is that without the US involvement hitler would have pushed eastward harder than he did and that many many of the german armies resources would have been eaten up on the eastern front against the Russians. Our involement certainly helped the inevitable death of the nazi war machine, but I think it was doomed anyway as the agressive tactics to take over country after country without time to recover spread the german army thinner and thinner...

We helped, I think we kept a lot of allies from being killed that would have otherwise died in repeated battles that the US was able to fight on their behalf. It was certainly a turning point in the war, but unlike the standard US war movie that shows the US vs. the nazis with the US winning, there were many countries inolved in the fight on many levels. For example, even though France surendered in 1940, the underground forces did a great deal of damage to the nazis (ironically they would be called "terrorists" by todays standards). Countries that had limited resources in western europe gave a great deal to help fight germany... It just wasn't as cut and dry as we in the US would like to think it was...

Very well...not a definite for sure Hitler would have won...

...can anyone speak to the 'mindset' of the world prior to Pearl Harbor? Was it the mindset of the world that Europe was losing and that they desperately needed US involvement? What about the US mindset...there was the Depression...but what of the Government Mindset...

...was the government mindset that if the US didn't enter the European conflict that Hitler would take over Europe...and that if Hitler took Europe that the US would be isolated and that any effort to defeat him on our part would be too little too late?

Just curious....what were we thinking prior to Pearl Harbor and what was the world thinking prior to Pearl Harbor...and was Pearl Harbor really a 'mistake' by the Japanese...or a staged event designed to work the American people into a 'war mood'?

The American involvement in the war played a moajor role. Even before Pearl Harbour, the Americans were supplying the allies with weapons. The British recognized this and this is one of the reasons they set up Camp X in Ontairio (for all you Canadian history buffs) was to try and encourage the Americans to join the war (Camp X was a base set to specifically train spies and secret agents).

I think the allies still could have won the war without American influence, it would have taken longer especially in the Pacific, and they there would have been a lot more causualties on both sides. I am mainly saying this is because after the Battle of Britain, the Germans went into a started to slowly retrait away from the British Isles, and so on.

I chose option B. It's fairly likely Hitler could have won..But..As was stated; he was a big fan of cutting his own throat. Invading Russia in winter is suicide for anybody, nor did he know how to conduct an amphibious assault. Had he developed landing boats like the allies he might have invaded Britiain easily, but as it was, without them he was forced into fiascos like the battle of Britian..They could have held out for many years longer because of that, although had Hitler taken all of Europe Britain may have been forced into defensive irrelevance..

I also chose B because Hitler was self-destructing before the US entered the war but it was a slow process and he had folks like Himler and Goehring running the show for him. Allied momentum definitly picked up after Pearl Harbor.

I can only speculate but I believe that US involvement was crucial if necessary for a timely defeat.

im gonna say the answer is A.
The German "uranium project" - which had been set up in 1939 to investigate nuclear reactors, isotope separation and nuclear explosives - amounted to no more than a few dozen scientists scattered across the country. Many of them did not even devote all of their time to nuclear-weapons research. The Manhattan Project, in contrast, employed thousands of scientists, engineers and technicians, and cost several billion dollars.

(this having been said they would still have gotten there sooner or later!!)

Even Albert Einstein had been involved, signing a letter to President Roosevelt in 1939 urging that the US take nuclear weapons seriously. And in December 1943 the Danish physicist Niels Bohr visited Los Alamos - the home of the Manhattan Project - to offer both scientific and moral support. But when the war was over, it was clear that the Germans did not have atomic bombs like those used against Japan.
governments like america wouldnt exists today if they didnt get involved.
and just think that without getting involved they wouldnt have ,..the a bomb 1st..the v2 rocket program scientist to make the cold war moon dreams come true.
and many other wonderful things that the paper clip nazis were used for.

I chose B from basically the same arguement as Waspie Dwarf.

Germany were unsure of what strength Britain had, and were not comitting themselves.

Britain had acquired the enigma code.

Not sure if this counts, but technology may have become available from America to aid Europe.

Russia although very poor in infrastructure and economy at the time did have a very large army. Numbers v efficiency? Who knows....

Without American involvement, fortress Europe would have remained in Axis hands. No D-Day. Hilter's only threat left would have been the Soviets. He also would have had addtional time to perfect many of his weapons, and eventually a nuke.

Ditto for the pacific theatre, where the Japanese would still be in control of Manila and threatening Australia and perhaps conconquering China.

I chose B, because with no fighting with the USA, Japan would have attacked the Soviet Union with full guns blasting.

indeed russia would of had a hell of a fight on its hands if japan didnt drag the US into the conflict.

i believe Nazi Germany and its Allies would of taken Australia, England, Russia and more of Africa with little resistance if not for the US.
The british were heading towards breaking point, under constant attack from V2 (i believe) rockets striking there cities daily.

Hitlers biggest mistake was attacking Russia.
No one army can defeat both the Russians and the US at once on such a wide and varying front.

The ruskies ended up taking most of eastern germany, with help from the US - this would not of happened without US intervention on the european front.

If the Facists took Russia, with or without Japans help - they would have all the oil they would need to conquer the lands and sea -
plus a pretty convenient way into Alaska which i think was hitlers way of striking at the Heart of the American people while there forces were in Europe.
Univitable, the US would of been drawn into conflict sooner or later - either at home by way of invasion or overseas.

probably an error or 2 in there, its 2.30am
ill check it tmr morning and correct any errors.

I chose unlikely simply because its a trick question. It was a setup from the beginning and one of the ones involved were the Rothchilds.

The V1 and V2 attacks on London did not start until June 1944 and March 1945 respectively (after D-Day and long after the USA entered the war). By the ime the V2 was used on Britainit was the Germans that were staring at defeat.

Britain was far from breaking point by the time the US joined the war. It had been close to breaking in the final days of the Battle of Britain, but the Nazis over estimated the British ability to replace lost aircraft and stopped the attacks on British airfields when victory in the air was within their grasp. Without air superiority the Nazis were not prepared to risk an invasion of Britain. This gave Britain a chance to regroup and strengthen it's military (which was woefully inadequate at the out break of the war).

Whilst it is still debatable whether the British (and Commonwealth) troops combined with the Soviet Union could have defeated Nazi Germany without the USA it is certainly true that Britain was along way further from defeat when the US entered the War than it had been in the dark days of 1940.

You also have to remember that Hitler was planning an attack on New York before Pearl Harbour. American involvement in the war was unadvoidable.

Also, the Me 111 Messershmit, (pardon my spelling, I do not speak fluent German)the first fighter jet would have caused Britain's Spitfire even more greath without American involvement.

The War would have just lasted a lot longer. The U.S. would have entered the war even if Pearl Harbor wasn't attacked. Hitler wouldn't have bin able to control Europe or the world for long anyways. It wouldn't have bin long before a rebellion came.

The U.S. should have helped out in the begining in my opinion. Their allies where under severe attack. If it was the other way around and Hitler was conquering North America, France and England would have bin there.

I don't know what would have happened if Germany had nukes though...

The German fighter jet was the Me 262.

How do you think America would have aided Britain in this case? The jet engine was a British invention and Britain had an operational jet fighter before the USA. Indeed Britain shipped jet engines to the USA.

The Gloucester Meteor entered service in 1944 around the same time as the Me 262. The US P-80 Shooting Star entered service later that year.

As with the V1 and V2, Germany was already near defeat when the Me 262 entered service and it had a minimal effect on the war.

I voted very likely, Because by the time they would go heads up with russia, they would all ready have had most Of Europe Fighting for them (under Nazi Contoll ) . OMO

If any country which assisted in WWII was not involved, I'm sure circumstances would have been much different. Don't get me wrong, as I am an American, but if this doesn't have anything to do with american arrogance or patriotism, what does it have to do with?

Ive always wondered to myself what sort of technologies would exist today if the Facists won WWII -

As most people are aware alot of todays Military based technologies are based on Nazi designs - the Ak-47 Was based on the German Mp44

German V1, V2 rockets were incorporated and researched and advaned by ex-nazilinked scientists in the USA, and from these designs the US military has seriously accelerated in this technology.

So that leads me to the point that these weapons and technologies are only like they are today, due to the nazis.
evidently these or similar weapons would of came to be sooner or later.

im sure theres other technologies.

when america arrived on the scene it was only the 17th largest army in the world.
with only 200,000 men and very old weapons and machinary.
their guns were out dated and to be honest they did an amazing amount of leg work to make up for it!!
for the way they were equipt and the lack of training they had they done very well indeed .
they really pulled the rabbit out of the hat.
and i hear from old english blokes that they were always keen to be in the thick of the fighting too, the u.s helped to finnish the war and at the price of united states innocence.
that nation has never been the same since.

I think it is very likely Hitler would have won WW2. Britain wouldn't have lasted much longer and after they were defeated Russia would have to face a lot more German troops. Once those 2 are defeated it would just be a matter of time before the rest of Europe, Asia, and Africa were under nazi control.

Yeah i completely agree. To put another spin on things, dose anyone think the US could have prevailed if the UK had fallen before the US had Joined the war?
They wouldn't have had the UK there as a stepping stone, there unsinkable aircraft carrier to retake Europe.

Also i always feel that the US an UK steel allot of the thunder for the victory over the Nazis from country's like Australia an Canada to name a few. An they played a part as important as any. Having said that the over shadowing seems to go on even today with the war in Iraq an Afghanistan. Like over here (the UK) the news is always American troops this British troops that. The other nations involved never seem to get a look in. Unless of course they are pulling out due to lack of spine *cough* Spain. Sorry for getting side tracked just feel its a bit unfair.

Thats probably because most of the big victories belong to the US, Britain, and Russia. But that doesn't mean the other countries didn't fight as hard or harder than them. Wasn't it Poland that was being attacked by Russia and Germany and managed to last 2 weeks? While France surrendered in a week just against Germany.

In Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country, William Greider explains a big reason for why and how the need for USA's involvement for wwII which basically corroborates with what I asserted before.
Edit: his bio--- http://www.williamgreider.com/about/

Nar, the plan was for Poland to hold for 2 weeks, while Britain an France mobilized an then where to hit Germany from the west. In reality Poland held for over 4 weeks and Britain an France didn't bother there arses helping, but i believe the Poles did very well regardless.
"In attacking the Germans lost 50,000 men, 697 planes and 993 tanks and vehicles". Don't know how the Russians did out of it, but i imagine better as they attacked 2 week after the Nazis. An I'm pretty sure quite a few pilots that flew in the Battle of Britain were poles that escaped....Not Positive though

What this poll is really about:
The question was 'would the Germans have won WWII without US involvement?'. The reason for asking has to do with the mindset of the US Government at the time. From the poll, it seems that most think it is at least somewhat likely that if the US hadn't gotten involved, that Europe would have been lost. Was the American Government thinking the same thing? That if Europe was lost... it would be too late for America and that America might be lost also? At the time, the American people were involved in a different war...a war of poverty...a war of Depression. The American people were not 'up in arms' to go to Europe and fight Hitler. In that day Europe really was...way over there. So.....

....The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and America entered the war....

Did Japan really attack Pearl Harbor? Or did the American Government attack Pearl Harbor as a catalyst to the 'up in arms' sentiment that propelled America to sacrifice everything to win the war? History has taught that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. History is also teaching that Islamic Extremists attacked New York City. Is there a parallel somewhere in there between the two?

Did the Government stage Pearl Harbor to get us into a war because the they believed it was necessary for our security?
Did the Government stage 9/11 to get us into a war for the same reason?

Yeah but the Japs don't say they never attacked pearl. They admit it completely. In 1941 after the US Broadcast that they had been attacked, you would think that Japan would say - Ur no we didn't, it wasn't us, no seriously - Unless they wanted a war, in which case they would probably just attack Pearl harbor.....so your theory is well.....just......stupid.

Yeah? And Osama says Al Queda attacked WTC.

How very astute of you. It is true that in so many ways the war never truly ended for us. It just kept shifting location.

The two incidents are worlds apart mate.

They are not to us.

Are they? They are both attacks that seem 'incomprehensible' that immediately involved us in a war. The difference is nobody really saw what happened at Pearl Harbor...no one even questioned it....people are questioning 9/11 because everyone saw it and what everyone saw doesn't add up to the official story...is it really that these two seperate incidents are worlds apart...or are they one and the same? I'm not saying they are...just speculating.

A better conspiracy is that the British sunk the Lusitania to bring you lot in to the first world war.
An yeah i know your just speculating.... Sorry

Not in respect to Americans getting killed by underhand means no, but its one thing saying America attacked there own navy(which they would need) to start then go to war!? then keep there fingers crossed that Imperial Japan would not speak up an say they didn't even get out of bed on the 7th. Compaired to saying - America went a blowing up there own people ( that they wouldn't need) to gain public support to go to war with a non-hostile nation over oil. Then hoping that a terrorist organization that wants world wide notoriety will scream at the top of there lungs that they screwed over America by taking out the TC.

They are well different senarios.

jesus why spiral out here?
you see this is something i hate , people always just tar the nations people with the same brush as its government.
when i say i feel that america entered the war i mean americans not ****ing uncle sam.
the people the mr smith and jones , without smith and jones from colorado and new yoik!!
the germans would have had it much much easier.
so whatever the respective governments did to each other to manipulate the masses.
whats your opinion about the question?

I'm not exactly sure if that is directed at me or not....but 'people' do not start wars...governments do.

well it wasnt aimed at you alone , you and incoming are both chewing the fat about something!!
im just saying that the original question in essence is about the states helping and making a difference or not. (thats how i took it anyway)
governments start wars but people fight em, thats partly my point you are both talking about conspiracys and that tends to lean toward the governments efforts to draw the people into the war.
im just saying that the average american helped us and DID make a big difference.
and though they may have been manipulated by the big brother club they still did the job in hand....i suppose im saying 4get the government the americans are smith and jones not the cia and the military.
they are on the whole good people never forget that they ARE on our side!!
and the recent trend of attacking them as a people will lead them to trust us no more.
i always say bush is sh** and he is,
but the nation as a people is it appears to me a good one.
thats what i really wanna say.

You are not the only one who noticed some possible implications for the future in the joint Russia/China/USA naval exercises.
I think the "possibility" that "parts" of western Europe could fall into fundementalist islamic control have been considered and have been found unacceptable by three powers that would otherwise never unite to attack another nation full force.

Ah, but Smith and Jones were NOT interested in fighting the Germans...they only did so because Pearl Harbor personalized it for them.

And Smith and Jones were NOT interested in fighting the Iraqis or the Iranians or the Terrorists at large...9/11 personalized it for them....

...and WWII was fought full scale and had a Victory Day. This war hasn't, can't and won't have a Victory Day, nor is it being fought full scale...and Smith and Jones have more or less forgotten 9/11...at least it is greatly de-emphasized in their lives. The point being this:

If the government manipulated the country into war by creating 9/11...and the zeal of 9/11 patriotism has waned.. maybe the government needs something else to unleash the war spirit of Smith and Jones....another 9/11 perhaps, but this time...possibly nuclear...so, if a major American city finds itself under a nuclear mushroom cloud...will we (as a country and a world) automatically believe it to be a 'terrorist attack'? I wonder.

btw I appreciate your appreciation of Americans

the nazis would have easily won.all they had to do was take over england,and ass valiant as the good people of england would have fought,the nazis had the numbers and the bombs to wipeout the whole of england.what the us provided to all the allied powers was the one thing that none of the others could have never provided,that being mass production of war supplies,food,clothes,guns,boats,planes,medicine, we could reproduce this all very easy.the other allies combined could have never done that.

Had the Americans not entered WWII it would have taken s much longer to liberate Europe, and we would have lost the war in the far east (possibly even seeing Australia and New Zealand taken by the Japanese).

However, El Alamein did not involve the US (to my knowledge) and nor did Hitler's decision to invade Russia. The tide had already turned by the time the US directly got involved with the European theatre.

Whether a longer war would have given Hitler time to develop atomic weapons is an interesting point though. As is the question of whether their use against Russia would have ultimately made any difference.

I answered not likely...

The US involvement in Europe was only near the end of the war and already German forces were being pushed back. Between the Canadians, Brittish and other European forces along with Russia sweeping in from the East Germany was already on it's way to collapse. However the Americans did defeat the Japanese forces on their own I feel that in regards to Europe American forces were not necissary. Economically Germany was already beginning to crumble its forces beginning to fall. The war would have ultimatly lasted longer but we would have won anyway.

America entered WWII to protect the pope from Hitlers minvasion of the Vatican. Hitler woulk have replaced the Bible with Mien kamph, the cross with the swastica, He would have moved the vatican to Berlin and made himself pope. You would be saying Hiel Hitler instead of Hail Jesus or Hail Mary. Hiel (Hail) is a salutation reserved for emperors.

1823 - House of Rothschild takes over financial operations of the Catholic Church.

"Early in the 19th century the Pope came to the Rothschild's to borrow money. The Rothschilds were very friendly with the Pope, causing one journalist to sarcastically say 'Rothschild has kissed the hand of the Pope... Order has been reestablished.' The Rothschild's in fact over time were entrusted with the bulk of the Vatican's wealth. The Jewish Ency., vol. 2, p. 497 states, 'It is a somewhat curious sequel to the attempt to set up a Catholic competitor to the Rothschilds that at the present time (1905) the latter are guardians of the papal treasure.' Researcher Eustace Mullins writes that the Rothschilds took over all the financial operations of the worldwide Catholic Church in 1823. Today the large banking and financial business of the Catholic Church is an extensive system interlocked with the Rothschilds and the rest of the International Banking system." - 77:154

77. Springmeier, Fritz, THE TOP 13 ILLUMINATI BLOODLINES, Portland, OR: Fritz Springmeier, 1995

1836 - Rothschild purchases land in Palestine.

“In 1836, [Zevi] Kalischer appealed to Mayer Amschel (...Rothschild) to buy out completely the land of Israel or at least Jerusalem and particularly the Temple area in order to ‘bring about the miraculous redemption from below’. Zevi Kalischer said the salvation promised by the prophets of old could come only gradually and by self-help from the Jews.” - 211:63

211. Graham, O.J. THE SIX-POINTED STAR New Puritan Library, 1984

1837 - Illegitimate birth of Adolf Hitler's father, who was the son of Salomon Mayer Rothschild.

"Alois, Hitler's father, was born in 1837 in the period when Salomon Mayer was the only Rothschild who lived at the Vienna mansion. Even his wife did not live there because their marriage was so bad that she stayed in Frankfurt. Their son, Anselm Salomon spent most of his working life in Paris and Frankfurt away from Vienna and his father.

"Father Salomon Mayer, living alone at the Vienna mansion where Hitler's grandmother worked, is the prime, most obvious candidate. And Hermann von Goldschmidt, the son of Salomon Mayer's senior clerk, wrote a book, published in 1917, which said of Salomon:

'…by the 1840s he had developed a somewhat reckless enthusiasm for young girls..' and

'He had a lecherous passion for very young girls, his adventures with whom had to be hushed up by the police.'

"And Hitler's grandmother, a young girl working under the same roof would not have been the subject of Salomon's desire? And this same girl became pregnant while working there? And her grandson becomes the Chancellor of Germany, funded by the Rothschilds, and he started the Second World War which was so vital to the Rothschild-Illuminati agenda? And the Illuminati are obsessed with putting their bloodlines into power on all 'sides' in a conflict? And the Rothschilds are one of their most key bloodlines? And it is all a co-incidence?" - 563

563. "Was Hitler a Rothschild?", David Icke: http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles/hitler.html

-------------------------------------------------

With those points in mind, I doubt that hitler was after the seat of the pope-- for his family were already imbedded with them.

I doubt it that if america was not involved in the war, we would have lost it... Hitler wanted too much, and the moment his troops entered russia, they were lost...

The nazis still had a chance to win the war even with the US entering it. They lost due to Hitlers poor managment.