Though Britain would of never won the Battle of Britain without FDR forcing a break in nuetrality by passing the "Cash and Carry" ammendment.

Had the US remained nuetral at the time Britain would of ran out of supploes.

The US also stopped Russia from taking the rest of Europe for itself.

Yes, damn the United States for not getting involved in a European war until it personally affected them.

Some of you are completely missing factors at the time and making it so cut and dry.

And you know.... the Russians didn't get into the war until Hitler decided to invade them...

That's true.  Though you could argue that was part of the "Cold War"... the war after.

A slightly disengenious way to look at it but still... not exactly logically unsound.

Two funny antecdotes about that.

1) Of the Allies leaders.  Stalin was the one who wanted to be most "gentle" with Germany.  FDR suggested castrate the German people.  Literally, not like castrate the country of the economy.  He literally wanted to make it so germans couldn't reproduce.

2) Patton and some other generals argued with the US and UK high commands that since the armies and war efforts were mobilized that we should "Push on to Moscow."

Edit: Wrote  a useless rant, nvm.

Which, looking back, may have been a good idea. =P

Wait until we defeat Japan later in '45, the Soviets are scared shitless of the atom bomb, they surrender. If they don't surrender, we have millions of veterans from the pacific theater to put into combat.

It's just like when MacArthur wanted to "push to Beijing" during the Korean War...it might have been a good idea for him to do it.

By launching from Africa, NATO forces could easily circle the forces, with Americans coming in from the west, and Europeans from the East.

That doesn't sound like a situation that the Chinese navy would want to get itself into.

Africa would be a horrible staging ground - too much ocean to cover. Without carriers, a Chinese invasion from Africa would be easily beaten as we have just too much naval capacity.

The only way you could do it would be the Red Dawn way - come in from Mexico and launch a 3-pronged assault via the CA and TX borders, and a diversionary attack from Cuba into FL and/or the East Coast. At such ranges, Chinese forces would have an advantage, as they have a very strong stockpile of aircraft - they may be old (lots of Mig-21 copies), but they could easily swarm the US.

The thing about the US is that our anti-air is really tied up in air superiority. Despite our technological advantages, our SAM systems are pretty bad compared to Russian and Chinese system. The best we have are patriots which are good, but compared to S-300's, they may be on par if we're lucky. Remember 9/11? Guess what we rolled out - Hummers with stingers. You think that'd stop a serious air threat.

If America was mobilized, you'd have to have a force of 7-10 million troops to pose a serious threat to the US, assuming that a country could field it. Texas would be horrible, as their national guard could probably invade Mexico and win.

Of course, everything is hypothetical. It would take so many failures by the US, South America, and our East Asian interests to cause an invasion. But that *does* seem like a plausible scenario - China invades Korea, Japan and Taiwan then comes for the US next. That could be a possible scenario.

Alright, here's my insane hypothetical two cents on the China scenario. If China really decided to push themselves outwards and start annexing other countries, I'd imagine they'd want to go northwest instead and fight Russia for some of the Stans first. That's probably the only War they could fight without drawing in the whole world against them.

I can't imagine too many other nations eager to sign up against either of those countries for the sake of a Stan, not to mention that once begun, Russia wouldn't exactly have the moral high ground either, so international judgments of right and wrong might fall on both sides.

However, if China finds themselves in a major military engagement anywhere in the world, I think they'd quite quickly have larger problems to deal with in their own borders. Tibet, Xinjiang and several ethnic groups we're not even familliar with
Would probably begin fresh and invigorated pushes against the government, and Taiwan and HongKong would want the hell out.

Not to mention there's a whoppingly large middle class now that's a bit more interested in their standard of living than the size of their borders. Unprovoked military aggression by China on a major scale could even be the tipping point to finally bring the people against their government.

At least, I'd like to think it would.