So, World War Two. Germans were the bad guys, and the Allies were the good guys.

Major crux of the war was Britain declaring war on Germany, when it would appear Mr Hitler thought Britain would either sit on the fence, or join him...

So here comes the hypothetical....what if Britain had joined with Germany? Now rather than go into stuff like Mosley etc being an alternate Prime Minister, I am more looking for comments based on how the British Government was at the time.

I won't make any comments right now, as my knowledge of the ins and outs of this particular event are shockingly poor, and whilst I don't mind my comments being shot down in flames, I'd at least like to give my threads a fighting chance. So off you go! Would it have affected the outcome of the war? What sort of world might we live in post-war....

The first question would be, would Germany have invaded France? If they didn't, where would they have assaulted? Would they have attacked the USSR earlier?

In a war where both Germany and the USSR are pitting the entirety of their nations against each other, who would have won? Would Japan have assaulted the USSR in the east? Would Japan have ever attacked the US?

Well, the USSR thing gets a bit more involved, when you consider the then extent of the British Empire. Certainly naval actions up through the North Sea become a possibility with Britain as an allly. Plus with Afghanistan and India then still part of the Empire, that's another way in. Wouldn't necessarily change the outcome of marching on Moscow (you die, they burn stuff but ultimately survive) but it does stack things slightly more in favour of Russia not winning. I think.

Plus, Britain getting into bed with Germany....where would that leave the USA?

Amaya wrote:The first question would be, would Germany have invaded France? If they didn't, where would they have assaulted? Would they have attacked the USSR earlier?

In a war where both Germany and the USSR are pitting the entirety of their nations against each other, who would have won? Would Japan have assaulted the USSR in the east? Would Japan have ever attacked the US?

The second part of your questioning is suspiciously similar to red alert especially the third game.

To the OP though, Europe would have fell with little challenge if the UK sided with the axis and I think several of the commonwealth countries would have joined if the UK did, probably not Australia though.

The result?

Without the problem of the Aliies, Hitler wouldn't need to take command of his forces leaving his competent generals in charge.

Western Europe would be unassailable. America wouldn't want to intervene and would be very isolationist.

Eastern Europe and the Balkans would have been scoured clean of the slavs and bolsheviks.

North Africa would be an Axis stronghold as would the entire middle east leading to asia minor.

Japan would still pursue its expansionist aims and war with America would be inevitable.

Post War?

Its hard to tell. I assume that there would be some resistance to German/fascist rule in the UK but since people are downright spiteful, nasty, stupid and predictable the brits would carry on as much as they had, throwing the occasional Roman salute around where needed.

'We don't like that Hitler, but he gets the train to run on time and those work shy jews 'aint a problem any more guv'nor'.
'I wish that fat old tosser Churchill would stop ruining things cor blimey'

Etc.

I would expect a massive power struggles in the Nazi hierarchy when Hitler popped his clogs leading to internal struggles and the inevitable weakening of power.

In America you would expect to see a rise in support for the far right along with extreme xenophobia/rascism.

I suppose that would depend on weather Japan attacks America or not.

EDIT: DAMN I type way to slow...That answer was for Mr. Mystery's question concerning US involvement.

Interesting, becuase Britain could just as easily have declared war on the USSR for invading Poland, and (officially) viewed Germany as stepping in to defend their interests. Certainly the USSR would be in a very uncomfortable position, and Operation Barbarossa or an equivalent would have been launched much quicker, and likely with better results.

The conflict between the US and Japan could still be a seperate issue, but with Britain as an ally Germany certainly wouldn't support Japan if they chose to invade by the way of Singapore, and would likely be forced to concentrate their efforts in China.

I wonder if the Holocaust would have been avoided, would the original plan to expel Jews to Madagascar have been carried out?

Mr Mystery wrote:Plus, Britain getting into bed with Germany....where would that leave the USA?

Exactly where it was. What a silly question.

When did the british ally with germany though? if it was prior to Einstein leaving Europe then the face of the planet may be very, very different.

Its hard to tell. I assume that there would be some resistance to German/fascist rule in the UK but since people are downright spiteful, nasty, stupid and predictable the brits would carry on as much as they had, throwing the occasional Roman salute around where needed.

'We don't like that Hitler, but he gets the train to run on time and those work shy jews 'aint a problem any more guv'nor'.
'I wish that fat old tosser Churchill would stop ruining things cor blimey'

You do realise that Britian hasn't lost the war or been invaded, it's just joined on the other side. And France would likely follow which very possibly means no war at all, although conflict with the USSR would be all but certain. Either way, this does not mean Britian would be forced to adopt fascist ideals, though they would likely become more prevalent in the political circles soon enough.

In America you would expect to see a rise in support for the far right along with extreme xenophobia/rascism.

You need the Germans to win WWII for that?

Then the Postage stamp would be the world's most popular mustache.

Also, if the Hindenburg had landed safely, then the Nazis would have gotten nukes before us.

France would have surrendered even quicker, probably.

I'd imagine that if the UK/Commonwealth and Germany went in together (along with Italy and other associated small fish) and Japan, most of Western Europe would have been quickly brought into line. Ireland may well have been invaded (again) and brought under Axis control.

After this, Russia would probably have been next on the hit list, along with China (which would have been a prime target for the Japanese).

Though Russia may have sided with the Axis powers if the UK had joined the Germans... though Hitler may have still pulled the ol' "treaty" and then attack later trick, since his dislike of the Russian people is well known.

Not sure what would have happened regards the final solution - the inclusion of the UK may well have slowed it, or lead it to be done more secretly by Germany before being introduced elsewhere.

However, Western Europe would certainly have been brought under Axis control a lot quicker and stayed under their control.

I also think that with the combined Commonwealth/German/Italian army, Russia would have been hard pressed to survive if attacked.

With a link to the Pacific that the pacification of Russia would have brought, America may well have become a target for direct invasion.

corpsesarefun wrote:When did the british ally with germany though? if it was prior to Einstein leaving Europe then the face of the planet may be very, very different.

Not really, Einstien would likely have left regardless of whether Britain allied or not. Indeed, going to the US may have become even more attractive.

Well if Lord Halifax had pressed his case in the aftermath of Chamberlain's downfall and had become Prime Minister then possibly what you are suggesting could have happened. He had been an architect of the policy of appeasement that the British and French had followed and may have adopted a more lenient tone towards Hitler. However there is also the fact that he issued the guarantee to Poland securing its sovereignty which says that he may have adopted a policy parallel with Churchill's. Even if he had chosen to follow his earlier policies I would doubt that they would have ran to the extent of siding with the Nazi's. Britain's response would have resembled the American opposition to Nazism with them backing anti-nazi forces. Although as soon as France was invaded then Blam Britain would declare war. However if Britain had (through Dr Who or some other fantasy) sided with the Nazi's then the German invasion of France may not have been a definite as Britain and France had a strong alliance at the time and with a Nazi friendly Britain France would probably have been coerced into making nice with Hitler.

So really in 1939 it was incredibly unlikely that the political climate in Britain would have been to support the Nazi's. It was a question of when not if, and if Poland had not been secured then eventually another of Hitler's conquests would have sparked the conflict.

A better turning point is the launching of Operation Barbarossa the Nazi invasion of Russia. If Hitler had instead concentrated on Sealion then possibly England would have fallen while Stalin was still a tentative Ally to Germany. Although that may have brought the USA into the war earlier and opened up another can of worms. God isn't alternative history hard?

I would recommend Fatherland by Robert Harris if you want an incredibly detailed and plausible alternate end of the Second World War. Its got an alternate Cold War and everything

Worth noting that Britain wasn't 100% opposed to facism at the time. Look up the British Union of Facists for more info. The support kind of was there, but never fully took off. An alliance with Germany, that almost certainly would have changed things.

For the sake of argument, the hypothetical UK/German allliance would have happened in place of the declaration of war, at the same time.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:When did the british ally with germany though? if it was prior to Einstein leaving Europe then the face of the planet may be very, very different.

Not really, Einstien would likely have left regardless of whether Britain allied or not. Indeed, going to the US may have become even more attractive.

Yeah but without the allies in europe would he have been able to leave.

Urghh I made all that comment before anyone else posted so sorry it doesn't follow the discussion

SilverMK2 wrote:France would have surrendered even quicker, probably.

Germany has not invaded yet, and would have little reason to. (No European Power is going to go to war with the rest of Europe)

Though Russia may have sided with the Axis powers if the UK had joined the Germans... though Hitler may have still pulled the ol' "treaty" and then attack later trick, since his dislike of the Russian people is well known.

With the UK at his back Hitler would have had little need for a Russian ally. Indeedm if Britain announced their support for Germany prior to or even during the invasion of Poland Hitler may have quickly siezed on that and launched an attack into Russia without hesitation.

With a link to the Pacific that the pacification of Russia would have brought, America may well have become a target for direct invasion.

Unlikely, at least not in Hitle's lifetime. Although he did always refer to the Americans as the mongrel race of the world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:When did the british ally with germany though? if it was prior to Einstein leaving Europe then the face of the planet may be very, very different.

Not really, Einstien would likely have left regardless of whether Britain allied or not. Indeed, going to the US may have become even more attractive.

Yeah but without the allies in europe would he have been able to leave.

Yes, it would likely be easier with no war occurring.

Also worth noting that anti-semitism in general was pretty high in the UK as anywhere else in Europe, so we can't necessarily rule out the holocaust in this one.

Mr Mystery wrote:Also worth noting that anti-semitism in general was pretty high in the UK as anywhere else in Europe, so we can't necessarily rule out the holocaust in this one.

It would be a mind-numbing process to execute the Final Solution in a time of peace, even in heavily anti-semitic areas. More likely an expulsion or European Jews would be demanded, and likely occur.

SilverMK2 wrote:
Though Russia may have sided with the Axis powers if the UK had joined the Germans... though Hitler may have still pulled the ol' "treaty" and then attack later trick, since his dislike of the Russian people is well known.

Well, Stalin and Russia both decided to carve Poland up.

Hitler never had any intention of letting the USSR live.

Also, Stalin refused to believe that Hitler would invade right up until he heard that jackboots were coming down on the motherlands soil.

Emperors Faithful wrote:No European Power is going to go to war with the rest of Europe

Well, except Germany... twice

With the UK at his back Hitler would have had little need for a Russian ally. Indeedm if Britain announced their support for Germany prior to or even during the invasion of Poland Hitler may have quickly siezed on that and launched an attack into Russia without hesitation.

Of course, though it depends exactly what point in the pre-war timeline all these alliances are declared (as well as how each nation reacted to them), which is the problem with alternate histories

Unlikely, at least not in Hitle's lifetime. Although he did always refer to the Americans as the mongrel race of the world.

I was not giving a timeline - I was just saying that America would have been a potiential target of the Axis forces at some point (as you pointed out, Hitler was not their biggest fan). Also, with pretty much the entire Middle East, the Russian oilfields, etc all under Axis control, America would have been very unhappy.

What was china like in the 1930's? was there already communist support in the country at that point?

If so its possible that Russia may have ran to the east for support if Hitler had been confident enough (due to british support) to declare war on Russia?

In which case what would the Chinese have done? supposing that the Japanese had still sided with the axis would the Chinese ally with the Russians or ignore them to worry about their own safety.

Also what would the American response to pearl harbour be?

There was little love between the UK and the USSR as well. It had barely been 20 years since the civil war between the Reds and the (Western backed) Whites.

corpsesarefun wrote:In which case what would the Chinese have done? supposing that the Japanese had still sided with the axis would the Chinese ally with the Russians or ignore them to worry about their own safety.

China had actually already been invaded before the start of WWII (in 1931) by Japan, who held cities in the East of China. China sapped a lot of the Japanese army in terms of men and materials.

Throughout WWII (and the period before in fact), various parties were vying for control, including the commies and spent almost as much time fighting each other as the Japanese.

SilverMK2 wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:In which case what would the Chinese have done? supposing that the Japanese had still sided with the axis would the Chinese ally with the Russians or ignore them to worry about their own safety.

China had actually already been invaded before the start of WWII (in 1931) by Japan, who held cities in the East of China. China sapped a lot of the Japanese army in terms of men and materials.

Throughout WWII (and the period before in fact), various parties were vying for control, including the commies and spent almost as much time fighting each other as the Japanese.

In that case my question changes a little, would Russia have aided the Chinese to gain an ally?

corpsesarefun wrote:In that case my question changes a little, would Russia have aided the Chinese to gain an ally?

Unlikely, having China as an ally would have done little to help them from a European based invasion. Although, having lost lands in Manchuria already to Japan, I do think there was already some support there for the Chinese.

corpsesarefun wrote:What was china like in the 1930's? was there already communist support in the country at that point?

If so its possible that Russia may have ran to the east for support if Hitler had been confident enough (due to british support) to declare war on Russia?

In which case what would the Chinese have done? supposing that the Japanese had still sided with the axis would the Chinese ally with the Russians or ignore them to worry about their own safety.

Also what would the American response to pearl harbour be?

China had the Kuomintang led by Chiang Kai-Shek and the communists, ultimately led by nic young man called Mao Zedong. China would not be a communist state if the West (America) had given more support to Shek after the war (and If Kai shek wasn't a prick).

I digress.

Communists and the Democratic Kuomintang sided with each other against Japanese occupation and imperialist rule.

Japan had plans to bring up to 5million citizens into Manchuria, Indeed Russia wanted the territory as well, with 200,000 emigrees flooding into the area (Harbin).

China was between a rock and a hard place, I would expect that Russia China or whoever would decide that the Chinese needed to be subdued.

China was in no state to aid or side anyone on its own terms.

America would react to pearl harbour in exactly the same way, except that a pacific war would probably be more attritional.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:No European Power is going to go to war with the rest of Europe

Well, except Germany... twice

World War 1 they had half of Europe on their side.

World War 2 they made half of Europe their side.

If, for example, France and Britian had threatened war over the Czech or German troops crossing intothe Rhineland Germany would have had no option but to back down.

Of course, though it depends exactly what point in the pre-war timeline all these alliances are declared (as well as how each nation reacted to them), which is the problem with alternate histories

I believe OP stated in a later post that Britians declaration of War (at the invasion of Poland) was replaced by a declaration of support/alliance.

I was not giving a timeline - I was just saying that America would have been a potiential target of the Axis forces at some point (as you pointed out, Hitler was not their biggest fan). Also, with pretty much the entire Middle East, the Russian oilfields, etc all under Axis control, America would have been very unhappy.

In this case their isolationist policy would have been greatly fortified, and might suit them.

I think we'd have no communism as the nazis and imperialists would crush the USSR. Also japan jerry and tommy would have INVADED and shown the us what it's like to have been in war.

Mr. Burning wrote:America would react to pearl harbour in exactly the same way, except that a pacific war would probably be more attritional.

Remember, Japan would not be fighting against a defeated/tired enemy in the French and English colonies. With no support from Germany (or at least with Britian not distracted by war with Germany) Japan would be in absolutely no state to sweep through South East Asia and launch an attack against the US. The war between China and the Japanese would have remained an 'internal asian affiar'.

However, if Japan did have some reason to conduct an attack against the US and have the means to do so then it would depend on whether the Carriers were stationed there. The US would definitely be caught by abolsute surprise (Japan having even less to gain from attacking them than they did in the real WWII), but if the carriers weren't taken out then Japan would stand no feasible chance (given that the US would have little-to-no resources drained by supporting Britain against Germany).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:I think we'd have no communism as the nazis and imperialists would crush the USSR.

This makes sense.

Also japan jerry and tommy would have INVADED and shown the us what it's like to have been in war.

But...?

Unless you did a freaking amazing alpha strike against the US's industrial complex, you'd have to deal with a long, drawn out, and very bloody war. The US was still warming up by the time the war ended.

Emperors Faithful wrote:World War 1 they had half of Europe on their side.

World War 2 they made half of Europe their side.

Just joking, don't worry

I believe OP stated in a later post that Britians declaration of War (at the invasion of Poland) was replaced by a declaration of support/alliance.

I was assuming that was just defining a specific point to anchor the disucssion.

In this case their isolationist policy would have been greatly fortified, and might suit them.

It would certainly be interesting - America really was resiting joining the war and I don't think they would have been prepared if Germany/etc had lead a rapid attack through Russia and then invaded America over the Bearing Straight. Though I can imagine the coast of Alaska resembling the Channel coast if America got itself concerned enough.

I think the real question is, what if Germany had delayed their invasions until they had nuclear capibilities, fighter jets, and decent rockets? And what if they had treated the people they conquered like humans instead of subhuman beasts?

Amaya wrote:Unless you did a freaking amazing alpha strike against the US's industrial complex, you'd have to deal with a long, drawn out, and very bloody war. The US was still warming up by the time the war ended.

However, before the war began America was still in the grips of the depression. During the initial stages of the War (as is in real history), American began to build up arms, material and soldiers/etc (a lot of which was sent to the UK).

Without that market and indeed, without WW2 actually taking place, would America have even started preparing? Or would they have started preparing later on (such as if Axis forces had invaded Russia)?

Amaya wrote:Unless you did a freaking amazing alpha strike against the US's industrial complex, you'd have to deal with a long, drawn out, and very bloody war. The US was still warming up by the time the war ended.

The US was in no position to prosecute a war with the entirety of the Europe.

Amaya wrote:I think the real question is, what if Germany had delayed their invasions until they had nuclear capibilities, fighter jets, and decent rockets? And what if they had treated the people they conquered like humans instead of subhuman beasts?

Yes, becuase everyone knew that nuclear bombs, fighter jets and rockets were just around the corner. As for your second point, those in France and much of Western/Northern Europe were treated in a humane enough matter by the conquerers. It was in Easter Europe where subhuman treatmen was dished out, and it was returned in kind. What is your point here?

Of course not. America was still very isolationist. They wouldn't give a rat's ass about stupid Europeans. That doesn't mean that the potential for a massive armed force wasn't there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:Unless you did a freaking amazing alpha strike against the US's industrial complex, you'd have to deal with a long, drawn out, and very bloody war. The US was still warming up by the time the war ended.

The US was in no position to prosecute a war with the entirety of the Europe.

Amaya wrote:I think the real question is, what if Germany had delayed their invasions until they had nuclear capibilities, fighter jets, and decent rockets? And what if they had treated the people they conquered like humans instead of subhuman beasts?

Yes, becuase everyone knew that nuclear bombs, fighter jets and rockets were just around the corner. As for your second point, those in France and much of Western/Northern Europe were treated in a humane enough matter by the conquerers. It was in Easter Europe where subhuman treatmen was dished out, and it was returned in kind. What is your point here?

I wouldn't call 6 years a very long time in the big picture. If Hitler had patience and launched his war in the mid to late 1940s with those tools things would have been very different.

SilverMK2 wrote:It would certainly be interesting - America really was resiting joining the war and I don't think they would have been prepared if Germany/etc had lead a rapid attack through Russia and then invaded America over the Bearing Straight. Though I can imagine the coast of Alaska resembling the Channel coast if America got itself concerned enough.

With Britain on the Axis side, anywhere on the Atlantic Coast would be up for grabs. America's Atlantic navy wasn't nearly impressive enough to take on the fleets of Germany, Britain and France. Though again, I have to say that the following decades would be spent securing control over Europe than launching an invasion against the US.

It took the USA almost 2 years from the start of WW2 to even begin to catch up with the rest of the European powers in terms of military power and and manufacturing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:I wouldn't call 6 years a very long time in the big picture. If Hitler had patience and launched his war in the mid to late 1940s with those tools things would have been very different.

But you have to remember, weapons technology is developed much faster during war time. And if the USA was not on war footing (having decided not to get involved in Europe), many of their weapons programs may well not exist at all.

Amaya wrote:Of course not. America was still very isolationist. They wouldn't give a rat's ass about stupid Europeans. That doesn't mean that the potential for a massive armed force wasn't there.

Of course there was potential, but the isolationist policy of the US would have little call for a massive increase in military might. A late 1930's US was a very different beast to that at the end of the war.

On another note, there are European posters here and I'm sure they wouldn't mind if you stopped demonstrating your contempt. It's only a hypothetical situation after all.

I wouldn't call 6 years a very long time in the big picture. If Hitler had patience and launched his war in the mid to late 1940s with those tools things would have been very different.

For some reason you are assuming that no one else will have gained acess to these weapons in that time. And remember, in a time of peace military advancements in technology are minimal compared to the huge advancements made when called for in wartime.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:It took the USA almost 2 years from the start of WW2 to even begin to catch up with the rest of the European powers in terms of military power and and manufacturing.

BAM.

Amaya wrote:I wouldn't call 6 years a very long time in the big picture. If Hitler had patience and launched his war in the mid to late 1940s with those tools things would have been very different.

But you have to remember, weapons technology is developed much faster during war time. And if the USA was not on war footing (having decided not to get involved in Europe), many of their weapons programs may well not exist at all.

And BAM. Ninja'd on both points, bugger it all.

You may be 6+ hours in front of me, but that just means you have to get up even earlier in the morning to beat me

SilverMK2 wrote:You may be 6+ hours in front of me, but that just means you have to get up even earlier in the morning to beat me

Holy crap, you mean it's 6 in the morn there? You people don't sleep.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:You may be 6+ hours in front of me, but that just means you have to get up even earlier in the morning to beat me

Holy crap, you mean it's 6 in the morn there? You people don't sleep.

It's all the tea and queues

It is 1.44am - I just looked it up and you are actually about 10 hours ahead of us

SilverMK2 wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:You may be 6+ hours in front of me, but that just means you have to get up even earlier in the morning to beat me

Holy crap, you mean it's 6 in the morn there? You people don't sleep.

It is 1.44am - I just looked it up and you are actually about 10 hours ahead of us

That's how you lot won the ashes. You stayed up all night scoring runs in the dead of night when we weren't looking.

Well, after we got out all your players in about 20 minutes, we didn't really need to stay up all night getting runs

SilverMK2 wrote:Well, after we got out all your players in about 20 minutes, we didn't really need to stay up all night getting runs

The real question in all this, as has been stated multiple times, is what the US would have done. Because the US and Canada would have to be attacked. And, combined, they would have been a hard beast to tackle. Plus, in the US you can have your own arsenal in your safe, so citizens would be able to stand next to the military in an invasion, and their would be a good resistance if they were invaded successfully.

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

If the Germans would've won, I would be into the following games:

Krieghammer 40K and Fantaschimuskrieghammer. Nothing would be different with the exception of Hitler's face on the money that we use. Quit fooling yourself. Leaders are all psychopaths.

Happygrunt wrote:The real question in all this, as has been stated multiple times, is what the US would have done. Because the US and Canada would have to be attacked. And, combined, they would have been a hard beast to tackle. Plus, in the US you can have your own arsenal in your safe, so citizens would be able to stand next to the military in an invasion, and their would be a good resistance if they were invaded successfully.

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

Whilst true to an extent, if all the European powers had joined together, you would have pretty much the whole of the worlds navy, an army several million strong, etc. It would not have been too hard (especially if Russia had joined the Axis powers) to invade America and essentially wipe it out as a nation.

Just look at the German advance into Russia - the Russians had large numbers of regular and irregular troops which the Germans simply wiped out (along with entire villages and towns) with relatively little effort. You think that a people so "mongrel" in Hitler's eyes would have stood much of a chance against a Nazi-ised Europe? (here I am assuming that Nazi politics took over the thinking of the European powers, which would have been entirely possible, given time).

Hell, even in 1939 Germany had 1.5m soldiers, 9 panzer divisions (with 300+ tanks in each), 8 support battalions and 6 artillery batteries. Russia had 4.8 millions soldiers (during the war about 30 million men served in the Russian armed forces).

In 1939 the USA had 175,000 men.

Happygrunt wrote:The real question in all this, as has been stated multiple times, is what the US would have done. Because the US and Canada would have to be attacked. And, combined, they would have been a hard beast to tackle. Plus, in the US you can have your own arsenal in your safe, so citizens would be able to stand next to the military in an invasion, and their would be a good resistance if they were invaded successfully.

What on Earth makes you think Canada would be on your side?

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

And the United States had a similiar view of invading the mainland of Japan. It's ridiculous to suggest this would make a marked difference against the combined might of 1940's Europe. Even if the 1930's American citizens were as gun happy as today this means little in the face of a full scale invasion (which, again, isn't likely; the US would do its best to promote trade and not get into such a terrible situation).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:Just look at the German advance into Russia - the Russians had large numbers of regular and irregular troops which the Germans simply wiped out (along with entire villages and towns) with relatively little effort. You think that a people so "mongrel" in Hitler's eyes would have stood much of a chance against a Nazi-ised Europe? (here I am assuming that Nazi politics took over the thinking of the European powers, which would have been entirely possible, given time).

I can see a increased sense of nationalism and a rebutal of all communist parties in European countries, but that doesn't necessarily mean a Nazi-ised Europe. Germany hasn't won any war or demonstrated it's prowess, it's simply part of a powerful alliance (UK, Germany and likely France).

I'm thinking that an acceptance of Germany would lead to a rightward swing for politics in Europe, which would put them more in line with Hitler. He is a powerful speaker and almost a cult leader in his ability to manipulate people into doing and thinking what he wanted.

SilverMK2 wrote: He is a powerful speaker and almost a cult leader in his ability to manipulate people into doing and thinking what he wanted.

Would that extend beyond the borders of Germany?

Emperors Faithful wrote:Would that extend beyond the borders of Germany?

It certainly had its followers. Remember, both Spain and Italy had extreme right wing leaders in and around that period.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Mr. Burning wrote:America would react to pearl harbour in exactly the same way, except that a pacific war would probably be more attritional.

Remember, Japan would not be fighting against a defeated/tired enemy in the French and English colonies. With no support from Germany (or at least with Britian not distracted by war with Germany) Japan would be in absolutely no state to sweep through South East Asia and launch an attack against the US. The war between China and the Japanese would have remained an 'internal asian affiar'.

However, if Japan did have some reason to conduct an attack against the US and have the means to do so then it would depend on whether the Carriers were stationed there. The US would definitely be caught by abolsute surprise (Japan having even less to gain from attacking them than they did in the real WWII), but if the carriers weren't taken out then Japan would stand no feasible chance (given that the US would have little-to-no resources drained by supporting Britain against Germany).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:I think we'd have no communism as the nazis and imperialists would crush the USSR.

This makes sense.

Also japan jerry and tommy would have INVADED and shown the us what it's like to have been in war.

But...?

For the record Emp I am assuming a war happened and that France was invaded and conquered. But I will assume that us brits didnt come to blows.

Which ever way you look at it, Japan needed natural resources, she was expansionist in outlook and needed to ensure that any enemies were subdued or unable to mount a response while she was consolidating her claims.

Japan would target any non alligned powers which would include the Dutch Spanish and American possessions in the pacific. America and Japan would have squared up at some point.

Mr. Burning wrote:For the record Emp I am assuming a war happened and that France was invaded and conquered. But I will assume that us brits didnt come to blows.

OP later stated that it is assumed that Britain announced their allegiance rather than declared war (which would be just after the Invasion of Poland). If France has been invaded and conquered then England has already come to blows, indeed their entire expeditionary force was nearly entrapped and annhilated at Dunkirk after the defeat. Despite the defeat and grim outook of the war an alliance with Germany after Dunkirk was probably less likely than at the wars initiation.

Which ever way you look at it, Japan needed natural resources, she was expansionist in outlook and needed to ensure that any enemies were subdued or unable to mount a response while she was consolidating her claims.

Japan would target any non alligned powers which would include the Dutch Spanish and American possessions in the pacific. America and Japan would have squared up at some point.

Japan wasn't suicidal.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Mr. Burning wrote:For the record Emp I am assuming a war happened and that France was invaded and conquered. But I will assume that us brits didnt come to blows.

OP later stated that it is assumed that Britain announced their allegiance rather than declared war (which would be just after the Invasion of Poland). If France has been invaded and conquered then England has already come to blows, indeed their entire expeditionary force was nearly entrapped and annhilated at Dunkirk after the defeat. Despite the defeat and grim outook of the war an alliance with Germany after Dunkirk was probably less likely than at the wars initiation.

Which ever way you look at it, Japan needed natural resources, she was expansionist in outlook and needed to ensure that any enemies were subdued or unable to mount a response while she was consolidating her claims.

Japan would target any non alligned powers which would include the Dutch Spanish and American possessions in the pacific. America and Japan would have squared up at some point.

Japan wasn't suicidal.

Looking with period eyes rather than with our own conceptions Japan would likely have pursued a policy of expansion, regardless of what was happening half a sphere away.

Japan would have given America plenty to think about in the Pacific.

Mr. Burning wrote:
Looking with period eyes rather than with our own conceptions Japan would likely have pursued a policy of expansion, regardless of what was happening half a sphere away.

You are correct that Japan would pursue a policy of expansion regardless of the situation in Europe, yet as Britain would be fully capable of responding to Japanese expansion into their colonies (given that there is no war with Germany), Japan would likely not set their sights on a defensible South-East Asia. Securing Manchuria and further progress into China would be more likely. And a weakened or distracted Russia might mean further expansions into their territory.

Japan would have given America plenty to think about in the Pacific.

Indeed. Ironically, Japan may have been viewed as the only possible ally. With the likelihood of an unfriendly (even hostile) Europe, America may have chosen to support either the USSR, Japan or both.

If the UK had decided to side with the Germans, it would likely be in a war against the USSR*. The result would likely be the same, Russia is still freaking hard to conquer. The UK wouldn't change that, as their war engine just wasn't that powerful, even when the nation went to near total war footing after bombardment it wasn't near the scale of the USSR and Germany, so their commitment to fighting on the fringes of the continent couldn't have been that great. Germany missing the significant French munitions it captured would be more of a loss than the UK would be a gain. Mind you, if the attack came during the invasion of Poland the Soviets would be even less prepared, and it might have been easier to capture full Soviet divisions at that point.


*Where are the French in all this? They wouldn't side with the Germans in, well, anything. But nor would they be all that likely to side against the UK and Germany to aid the Soviets. More likely they'd just sit back, supply the UK and Germany and enjoy the economic boost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr. Burning wrote:China had the Kuomintang led by Chiang Kai-Shek and the communists, ultimately led by nic young man called Mao Zedong. China would not be a communist state if the West (America) had given more support to Shek after the war (and If Kai shek wasn't a prick).

The US gave plenty of arms and armour to the KMT. They squandered it, as corrupt dicatorships will. History has shown you can give a limitless supply of guns to corrupt dictatorships, the communists will beat them.

Communists and the Democratic Kuomintang sided with each other against Japanese occupation and imperialist rule.

They did, formally, more or less. Both sides were unwilling to properly deploy their forces against the Japanese, as this would weaken them in their inevitable showdown against the other.

America would react to pearl harbour in exactly the same way, except that a pacific war would probably be more attritional.

If America didn't commit 80% of its forces to fighting in Europe, the war in the Pacific would have been much, much quicker.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Remember, Japan would not be fighting against a defeated/tired enemy in the French and English colonies.

It wasn't so much a defeated/tired Britain, as a Britain who picked up all it's naval assets and moved them to defend the home country, leaving the colonies to hang.

With no support from Germany (or at least with Britian not distracted by war with Germany) Japan would be in absolutely no state to sweep through South East Asia and launch an attack against the US. The war between China and the Japanese would have remained an 'internal asian affiar'.

Well, in the wake of the Nanking atrocity the US would still have cut off oil. Which means the Japanese would still need the Phillipines, one way or another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:Unless you did a freaking amazing alpha strike against the US's industrial complex, you'd have to deal with a long, drawn out, and very bloody war. The US was still warming up by the time the war ended.

One thing that has to be remembered is that the US was nowhere near total war. Their sacrifices were considerable, but they were nowhere near the sacrifices made by the Russians and the Germans.

I've pointed out on this forum a few times that the overwhelming bulk of the war was fought in the East (more than 80% of German casualties were in the East). The point is not that US couldn't match it with those powers, it could have beaten either of them convincingly, the point is the difference between a total war footing that is acceptable when your country is under threat of invasion, and the war footing undertaken when you're fighting a war in another continent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:I think the real question is, what if Germany had delayed their invasions until they had nuclear capibilities, fighter jets, and decent rockets? And what if they had treated the people they conquered like humans instead of subhuman beasts?

Then they wouldn't have been the Nazis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:It would certainly be interesting - America really was resiting joining the war and I don't think they would have been prepared if Germany/etc had lead a rapid attack through Russia and then invaded America over the Bearing Straight. Though I can imagine the coast of Alaska resembling the Channel coast if America got itself concerned enough.

It was beyond the Nazis to sustain supplies to reach Moscow. Maintaining supplies over Siberia, and enough to mount a naval invasion across the Bering Strait is entirely impossible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happygrunt wrote:The real question in all this, as has been stated multiple times, is what the US would have done. Because the US and Canada would have to be attacked. And, combined, they would have been a hard beast to tackle. Plus, in the US you can have your own arsenal in your safe, so citizens would be able to stand next to the military in an invasion, and their would be a good resistance if they were invaded successfully.

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

The great big ocean is a bigger issue than the idea that citizens would also have rifles.

Seriously, getting troop ships across that sea, against US subs and bomber fleets would have been a nightmare. The idea that everyday citizens owned guns would be much less of an issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Japan wasn't suicidal.

Japan needed the raw materials available across Asia. With the US stopping oil supplies in the wake of the Rape of Nanking, the Japanese knew they could not continue to expand and negotiate on their current terms with the US. They had considerable respect for their naval prowess, and felt they could deliver two decisive blows to the US, at which point the US would renegotiate.

They got the first, in the victory at Pearl Harbour, but stumbled in the Timor Sea and were decisively beaten at Midway.

Even if Midway had gone the other way I doubt the US would have negotiated, but I do not believe the Japanese were suicidal for thinking otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:You are correct that Japan would pursue a policy of expansion regardless of the situation in Europe, yet as Britain would be fully capable of responding to Japanese expansion into their colonies (given that there is no war with Germany), Japan would likely not set their sights on a defensible South-East Asia. Securing Manchuria and further progress into China would be more likely. And a weakened or distracted Russia might mean further expansions into their territory.

The Japanese actually attempted to capture Russian territory in the early days of Barbarossa. They were thumped, because as capable as the Japanese navy was their armed forces were not on the same level as European powers...

That said, if the Russian campaign had gone differently maybe as Russia collapsed the Japanese might have given it another go.

sebster wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Remember, Japan would not be fighting against a defeated/tired enemy in the French and English colonies.

It wasn't so much a defeated/tired Britain, as a Britain who picked up all it's naval assets and moved them to defend the home country, leaving the colonies to hang.

When I said defeated I more or less meant France, which was in little state to react to the Japanese expansions. You were right to correct me regarding Britain though. That said, there's little reason to prevent Japan from pulling off another stunning victory at Singapore like they did in the real thing.

[quoteWell, in the wake of the Nanking atrocity the US would still have cut off oil. Which means the Japanese would still need the Phillipines, one way or another.

If we want a good what if the we would do worse than to read Philip K Dicks - Man In a High Castle.

It deals with post occupation USA after a war where Churchill never came to power.

In an alliance with Germany what autonomy would the UK and France have?
I cannot see long term plans for strong independent nations outside of a German sphere of influence.

Mr. Burning wrote:If we want a good what if the we would do worse than to read Philip K Dicks - Man In a High Castle.

It deals with post occupation USA after a war where Churchill never came to power.

I've read something like this, but it was Britain, not the US, that was occupied. Churchill not coming to power wouldn't mean the occupation of the US by Germany. I don't think they would have the manpower.

In an alliance with Germany what autonomy would the UK and France have?
I cannot see long term plans for strong independent nations outside of a German sphere of influence.

Hitler at one point demonstrated an admiration for the British Empire. Apart from their handling of India, which of course should have involved more death and nastiness.

An alliance doesn't mean they would become slaves of Germany, but there would probably be an increase of nationalist party movements.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Mr. Burning wrote:If we want a good what if the we would do worse than to read Philip K Dicks - Man In a High Castle.

It deals with post occupation USA after a war where Churchill never came to power.

I've read something like this, but it was Britain, not the US, that was occupied. Churchill not coming to power wouldn't mean the occupation of the US by Germany. I don't think they would have the manpower.

In an alliance with Germany what autonomy would the UK and France have?
I cannot see long term plans for strong independent nations outside of a German sphere of influence.

Hitler at one point demonstrated an admiration for the British Empire. Apart from their handling of India, which of course should have involved more death and nastiness.

An alliance doesn't mean they would become slaves of Germany, but there would probably be an increase of nationalist party movements.

Both Germany and Japan have invaded, they hold both east and west coast, and people are people........

I don't think slaves, think vassals with Germany becoming 'Rome'. With Hitlers ideology and history it wouldn't be a stretch to consider that the UK and France could find themselves invaded at some point and aborbed within a greater Reich. After the pacification of the East.

I wouldn't bet against a full scle Indian mutinity, along with some of the other colonies.

I could well see South Africa totally embracing Nazi ideals and possibly becoming the first known genocidal country.

Mr. Burning wrote:I don't think slaves, think vassals with Germany becoming 'Rome'. With Hitlers ideology and history it wouldn't be a stretch to consider that the UK and France could find themselves invaded at some point and aborbed within a greater Reich. After the pacification of the East.

Hitler repeatedly demonstrated that he was adverse to executing a war with Western Europe from an ideal point of war. He always stated that Germany's future lay in pacifying the East. Which is a process that would take years and very likely exhuast Germany. There's little reason to turn against you allies. Despite the aggressive stance of the Nazi Party, I can't see them attempting to start a war with Western Europe just for the heck of it, especially when they already had the mas allies.

I wouldn't bet against a full scle Indian mutinity, along with some of the other colonies.

They already tried that.

I could well see South Africa totally embracing Nazi ideals and possibly becoming the first known genocidal country.

Wait, what? I thought that was the Israelites.

Wait, what? I thought that was the Israelites.

you know what I mean, I could have been clear though 'me no typy thoughts out welly'.

Mr. Burning wrote:

Wait, what? I thought that was the Israelites.

you know what I mean, I could have been clear though 'me no typy thoughts out welly'.

Israel jokes aside, I'm not sure what you mean regarding South Africa.

I am assuming that in our what if world South Africa may decide on an exercise of more wide ethnic cleansing.

From apartheid to something more sinister.

A more pro right wing Great Britain could lead to some grevious thinking across the pink parts of the map.

Less rights for aboriginal people in Australia too.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
What about the continent of Africa as a whole?
What about South America? What role would they play, would the US have more issues with Mexico?

Spain and Portugal where would they fit in?

Mr. Burning wrote:I am assuming that in our what if world South Africa may decide on an exercise of more wide ethnic cleansing.

From apartheid to something more sinister.

That still wouldn't make them the first country to commit genocide, but even so it's would be a momentous struggle to exterminate the majority of the population, even if in complete control of the army.

A more pro right wing Great Britain could lead to some grevious thinking across the pink parts of the map.

Less rights for aboriginal people in Australia too.

Likely wouldn't have much effect. At that point things weren't too great in any case.

What about the continent of Africa as a whole?

Germany would be interested in reclaiming/rebuilding colonies that had been lost previously.

What about South America? What role would they play, would the US have more issues with Mexico?

Spain and Portugal where would they fit in?

lol dunno. These questions hurt. (Spain and Portugal probably jump on the bandwagon, Spain having lost it's authority as a major European power many years before)

SilverMK2 wrote:

Amaya wrote:Unless you did a freaking amazing alpha strike against the US's industrial complex, you'd have to deal with a long, drawn out, and very bloody war. The US was still warming up by the time the war ended.

However, before the war began America was still in the grips of the depression. During the initial stages of the War (as is in real history), American began to build up arms, material and soldiers/etc (a lot of which was sent to the UK).

Without that market and indeed, without WW2 actually taking place, would America have even started preparing? Or would they have started preparing later on (such as if Axis forces had invaded Russia)?

Without the European theater sapping the majority of US production, Japan would have been utterly annihilated by the full power of the US. Instead of 22 carriers the US eventually produced in WWII, how many would they have made-and all aimed at the Rising Sun.

Imagine how many people in Asia would have survived if a fast track defeat of Japan had occurred?

Of course, if the US had been preparing for war in the way it did during WWII but used all the men and materials to face off against Japan, it would have taken very little time to defeat them.

However, the point was that since there would be no market in the situation that is currently being talked about (a united Europe, either with or without France) and America very much wanting to not get involved in Europe, would they have started ramping up production at all?

Wouldn't matter. We weren't ramping up aircraft carriers at the time.

However, you still need ground forces, munitions, etc. As mentioned earlier, the USA had very few troops (I seem to remember ~170,000ish soldiers in 1939).

SilverMK2 wrote:However, you still need ground forces, munitions, etc. As mentioned earlier, the USA had very few troops (I seem to remember ~170,000ish soldiers in 1939).

No you don't. You just need the US Navy. Give them two years two create ten marine divisions and it would not be pretty...for the Japanese.
Again we've not really specified the timeline. Do the Japanese really pull the SouthEast Asia thing at that point? It switches the tables. Instead of Germany facing a united Allies its Japan getting its arse kicked by the US, UK, France (Indochine don't forget), Australia, and the military power house of the...er..Dutch (ok maybe not them).

I'm visualizing bad day at Black Rock for the Japanese fleet facing Halsey with US aircraft carriers and the 5 British carriers. Yerp.

If the UK had joined with the Nazi cause:

Europe would have fallen completely to this joint force.

Russia would have had a very difficult time, and probably ended up capitulating.

Japan would have successfully conquered most of the Pacific (without the British resistance, the French couldn't really stop them).

But, then, the US would have said " these guys" and beaten down the rest of you.

London and Berlin would have been nuked, possibly quite a few more targets.

Current world conditions would be that Communism is completely wiped out, no Korean War, no Vietnam. A joint US/China capitalist empire holds all the world's wealth, but is fighting off a full-scale Islamic Jihad. Without the military buildup from the cold war, it's a much more destructive war. But, China is nearing the point of launching a full-scale nuclear assault on the entire Middle East.

Europe is 50% poor slums and 50% nuclear wasteland, ruled by local warlords and subject to the rather often coup. Most Europeans struggle to get visas so they can move to the rich African countries of Sudan and Ethiopia.

I could see a "Imperialist Britain" siding with the Axis. But with Japan attacking Pearl Harbor and Hitler breaking his truce with the USSR. I am not sure how much better they would fare.

However if the Axis did win what ever would a bright haired bright eyed teenager do!!?!

After Zhukov the Japanese had no plans to attack the USSR. without a second front the Germans still see T34s in Berlin, just later.

The Brits might have stayed out of it, until Germany attacked France or Italy went after Africa.

Frazzled wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:However, you still need ground forces, munitions, etc. As mentioned earlier, the USA had very few troops (I seem to remember ~170,000ish soldiers in 1939).

No you don't. You just need the US Navy. Give them two years two create ten marine divisions and it would not be pretty...for the Japanese.

2 years is a very long time when you're at war. And the US armament would likely have been even slower given that they weren't producing or supplying Britian with anything. Of course, the US may have simply decided to supply Russia with the equipment instead, though the transportation of such materials would have been very difficult.

And remember, even though the US wouldn't likely be at war with the countries of Europe, they would definitely be keeping a sizeable portion (likely the majority) of their Navy in the Atlantic. To draw too many away into a war with Japan would leave the entire East Coast, including your capital, open to a seaborne invasion. It's unlikely that the European powers would pursue that goal during or immediately after the war with Russia, but the US would never be foolish enough to ignore the possibility.

Grakmar wrote:If the UK had joined with the Nazi cause:

Europe would have fallen completely to this joint force.

Russia would have had a very difficult time, and probably ended up capitulating.

Japan would have successfully conquered most of the Pacific (without the British resistance, the French couldn't really stop them).

But, then, the US would have said " these guys" and beaten down the rest of you.

London and Berlin would have been nuked, possibly quite a few more targets.

Current world conditions would be that Communism is completely wiped out, no Korean War, no Vietnam. A joint US/China capitalist empire holds all the world's wealth, but is fighting off a full-scale Islamic Jihad. Without the military buildup from the cold war, it's a much more destructive war. But, China is nearing the point of launching a full-scale nuclear assault on the entire Middle East.

Europe is 50% poor slums and 50% nuclear wasteland, ruled by local warlords and subject to the rather often coup. Most Europeans struggle to get visas so they can move to the rich African countries of Sudan and Ethiopia.

I can't tell if you're really this ignorant or just trolling. Most people would be aware that Nukes were created at the end of World War II, and that they weren't launched from missiles.

Frazzled wrote:After Zhukov the Japanese had no plans to attack the USSR. without a second front the Germans still see T34s in Berlin, just later.

The Brits might have stayed out of it, until Germany attacked France or Italy went after Africa.

Without Britain as an ally France would have probably have hopped on board. And really, the US had little reason to actively explore hostile relations with even a Nazified Europe.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I can't tell if you're really this ignorant or just trolling. Most people would be aware that Nukes were created at the end of World War II, and that they weren't launched from missiles.

It was meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. Tone is a little difficult to do over the internet.

Although, I do think it would have ended with a Nuked Berlin and London.

England wasn't nearly as militarily prepared as Germany at the start of WW2. That's one of the major reasons England and France refused to respond to Hitler's early moves with force. If England allied with Nazi Germany, they would have advocated moving much slower than Hitler preferred. It could easily have resulted in the war being delayed a few years, which means the US gets nukes in the middle of the war, rather than at the end.

And, they weren't launched from missiles, but the US would have ended up working much more closely with the Russians, perhaps even giving them nukes.

But, I think this topic is a little silly. Britain wasn't very likely to work with Hitler and wasn't going to stay neutral once Germany invaded Belgium and France.

Grakmar wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I can't tell if you're really this ignorant or just trolling. Most people would be aware that Nukes were created at the end of World War II, and that they weren't launched from missiles.

It was meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. Tone is a little difficult to do over the internet.

Fair enough.

Although, I do think it would have ended with a Nuked Berlin and London.

England wasn't nearly as militarily prepared as Germany at the start of WW2. That's one of the major reasons England and France refused to respond to Hitler's early moves with force. If England allied with Nazi Germany, they would have advocated moving much slower than Hitler preferred. It could easily have resulted in the war being delayed a few years, which means the US gets nukes in the middle of the war, rather than at the end.

Not really, even if Germany was delayed by British reluctance (which it wouldn't be, Germany wouldn't need Britain to invade Russia) the US still wouldn't be at war and the program for Nuclear Missiles either wouldn't exist or wouldn't be moving along as rapidly as it did in during the war.

And, they weren't launched from missiles, but the US would have ended up working much more closely with the Russians, perhaps even giving them nukes.

There are three problems with this line of thinking.
1) The US wouldn't necessarily take a side either way, they have little interest in seeing Russia win the war.
2) The idea that the US would entrust the USSR with Nuclear weapons is laughable.
3) The Russian Airforce would still have to fly through the German Luftwaffe and British RAF with a very dangerous weapon. When the US bombed Japan the Japanese airforce had long been neuatralized.

But, I think this topic is a little silly. Britain wasn't very likely to work with Hitler and wasn't going to stay neutral once Germany invaded Belgium and France.

If Britain (and therfore France) hadn't declared war on Germany following the invasion of Poland then there was no reason for Hitler to seek a war with them. He always maintained the Germany's future lay in conquering the east.

I don't see America ever getting involved, Japan has no need to press into the European colonies it can just keep taking bits of China and eastern Russia with inpunity. While ever it has no need to attack the European colonies the US navy (and therefore the US) is of no interest or threat to the Japanese. While Britain, France and Germany are in alliance Japan would never threaten their South East Asian colonies.

Of course Germany needs to invade Poland to invade the Soviet Union, otherwise they don't have a common border. Germany invading Poland is a deal breaker for the whole alliance. I don't see it working.

There is also Italy (the wild card) Nothing stated so far prevents Italy invading other European colonies in Africa. War between Italy and Britain and or France is inevitable. Hitler would be a fool (bigger fool) to break the Anglo-Franco-German alliance over a few colonies so would stay neutral. Naturally the ensuing war would be a disaster for the Italians.

Emperors Faithful wrote:When I said defeated I more or less meant France, which was in little state to react to the Japanese expansions. You were right to correct me regarding Britain though. That said, there's little reason to prevent Japan from pulling off another stunning victory at Singapore like they did in the real thing.

It's still possible, I guess. There would have been far greater numbers of ships to defend Singapore, which might have made a landing impossible. But then, when you consider how completely incompetent the defence of Singapore was, I'm not sure any increase in resources would have made a difference.

Would that still force them into conflict with the US? After all, with Britain (and likely the Commonwealth) siding with Germany the US may not have any reason to deny it to them.

Dunno, thing is we're basically in crazy land here with our hypothetical, where the horrible nature of the Nazis doesn't seem to be a factor in the UK allying with them. At which point we wonder if the same sociopathic amorality has infected the US, and they suddenly stop caring about what the Japanese have doing in China, and keep their oil shipments flowing.

If that's the case, then there's no need for a Pearl Harbour.

I'd be interested to see the capability of the US Navy pitted against that of the UK and Germany in the Atlantic.

Yeah, especially if you kick the opening of the conflit back a few years, and you get carrier launched Spitfires.

Interesting, after their victory over the Russian fleet early in the century I was not aware that they had been defeated on land.

In addition to the Russian defeat at Port Arthur, they were also handed an embaressing defeat on land by the Japanese. Which was likely part of the reasons that a few decades later the Japanese tested the defences of the now Soviet Russians, but this time the result was very different.

My man Zhukov was the hero; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:However, you still need ground forces, munitions, etc. As mentioned earlier, the USA had very few troops (I seem to remember ~170,000ish soldiers in 1939).

The US handily and entirely defeated the Japanese, while still committing 80% of their fighting capacity to the destruction of the Nazis. That early boost in production is nice and all, but just doesn't measure compared to the resources the US threw at Germany, which in this hypothetical would have all been committed towards defeat of Japan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:And remember, even though the US wouldn't likely be at war with the countries of Europe, they would definitely be keeping a sizeable portion (likely the majority) of their Navy in the Atlantic. To draw too many away into a war with Japan would leave the entire East Coast, including your capital, open to a seaborne invasion. It's unlikely that the European powers would pursue that goal during or immediately after the war with Russia, but the US would never be foolish enough to ignore the possibility.

Attempting such an invasion would be almost impossible. You saw the planning that went into D-day, and that was to cross the channel. The resources needed to cross the Atlantic and deliver troops onto the East Coast of the US would be a hundred times greater, and beyond even the whole of continental Europe to manage by itself. They certainly couldn't have handled such an operation in secret - the US would have known about such planning years in advance.

The US could certainly have committed the overwhelming majority of their forces to fighting the Japanese.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grakmar wrote:It was meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. Tone is a little difficult to do over the internet.

Very much so, yes. I'd wrote a fairly curt reply to your last post, and then saw your were joking.

Although, I do think it would have ended with a Nuked Berlin and London.

It would have been very difficult to put bombers in range of one city or the other. There's also still no reason for the US to engage itself in the war.

England wasn't nearly as militarily prepared as Germany at the start of WW2. That's one of the major reasons England and France refused to respond to Hitler's early moves with force. If England allied with Nazi Germany, they would have advocated moving much slower than Hitler preferred. It could easily have resulted in the war being delayed a few years, which means the US gets nukes in the middle of the war, rather than at the end.

Close, but not quite. The UK was certainly unprepared (a funny thing about the much villified Chamberlain was that he made his deal with Hitler, declared peace in our time, then immediately doubled the defence budget - he knew what was coming, he just needed time). But the UK and France completely overestimated Germany's capabilities, had they taken the initiative when Poland was invaded they could have marched straight to Berlin. Even during the defeat of France the seemingly overwhelming strength of the Germans was actually very brittle, there were very few reserves available for any setback.

And, they weren't launched from missiles, but the US would have ended up working much more closely with the Russians, perhaps even giving them nukes.

I think the history of the US is that they're not willing to give any nuclear capabilities, let alone actual nukes. And certainly not commies.

But, I think this topic is a little silly. Britain wasn't very likely to work with Hitler and wasn't going to stay neutral once Germany invaded Belgium and France.

Yes, very much so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

George Spiggott wrote:I don't see America ever getting involved, Japan has no need to press into the European colonies it can just keep taking bits of China and eastern Russia with inpunity. While ever it has no need to attack the European colonies the US navy (and therefore the US) is of no interest or threat to the Japanese. While Britain, France and Germany are in alliance Japan would never threaten their South East Asian colonies.

Japan needed resources and markets. When European powers cranked up their tariffs it no longer had markets for its industry. When the US cut off oil in the wake of Japanese actions in China, it lost key resources. Their answer was to bring all of Asia under its fold, and key to this was the Phillipines, and that meant making the US give it up. War with the US was inevitable.

And no, Japan couldn't just take bits of Russia with impunity. It tried that in 1938 and was utterly spanked. At which point Northern expansion was abandoned in favour of Southern expansion.

sebster wrote:
Dunno, thing is we're basically in crazy land here with our hypothetical, where the horrible nature of the Nazis doesn't seem to be a factor in the UK allying with them. At which point we wonder if the same sociopathic amorality has infected the US, and they suddenly stop caring about what the Japanese have doing in China, and keep their oil shipments flowing.

If that's the case, then there's no need for a Pearl Harbour.

I don't think it's the distasteful nature of the Nazi party that made a UK alliance difficult, but rather the aggresive expansion. And really, the idea that Britain would go back on one promise (Poland) or possibly direct their hostility towards the Soviets instead (rather than Germany) for the invasion, this idea is far fetched, but not completely random.

Yeah, especially if you kick the opening of the conflit back a few years, and you get carrier launched Spitfires.

Want. Very do want.

In addition to the Russian defeat at Port Arthur, they were also handed an embaressing defeat on land by the Japanese. Which was likely part of the reasons that a few decades later the Japanese tested the defences of the now Soviet Russians, but this time the result was very different.

My man Zhukov was the hero; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol

Conversations with sebster always come with useful Historic tidbits!

Emperors Faithful wrote:Attempting such an invasion would be almost impossible. You saw the planning that went into D-day, and that was to cross the channel. The resources needed to cross the Atlantic and deliver troops onto the East Coast of the US would be a hundred times greater, and beyond even the whole of continental Europe to manage by itself. They certainly couldn't have handled such an operation in secret - the US would have known about such planning years in advance.

The US could certainly have committed the overwhelming majority of their forces to fighting the Japanese.

It wouldn't really have to be an invasion, or even a landing force of any sort. Leaving an alien/hostile fleet in complete control of the Atlantic is not anyone's idea of a great plan. Imagine the consequences of a European navy bombarding any of the heavily populated West Coast cities while the US sent their entire fleet to combat the Japanese. The US would have to leave at significant portion of their Navy just to safeguard against this possiblity, even if the European powers showed no inclination to give it a try.

Japan needed resources and markets. When European powers cranked up their tariffs it no longer had markets for its industry. When the US cut off oil in the wake of Japanese actions in China, it lost key resources. Their answer was to bring all of Asia under its fold, and key to this was the Phillipines, and that meant making the US give it up. War with the US was inevitable.

And no, Japan couldn't just take bits of Russia with impunity. It tried that in 1938 and was utterly spanked. At which point Northern expansion was abandoned in favour of Southern expansion.

This does of course depend on how the US reacts to the affairs in Europe. Would they back Britain (and therefore Germany) in the war against the Soviets? Or do the exact opposite? If it's the former than they would be free to engage in a war with Japan at their whim, if it's the latter they may be more willing to strengthen ties with an ally in Asia and ignore the atrocities being committed by the Japanese. (The poor relations between Japan and Russia would be an issue though).

And then there's the possibility of the US choosing to become as isolationist as possible, which would still likely lead to a war between Japan and the US.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I don't think it's the distasteful nature of the Nazi party that made a UK alliance difficult, but rather the aggresive expansion. And really, the idea that Britain would go back on one promise (Poland) or possibly direct their hostility towards the Soviets instead (rather than Germany) for the invasion, this idea is far fetched, but not completely random.

Except there was a very strong moral distaste for Hitler, to the point where the more respectable nations just wouldn't have worked with the guy. Tolerated or ignored him, sure, but not actively engaged in military operations with him.

Want. Very do want.

There's never been a prettier plane.

It wouldn't really have to be an invasion, or even a landing force of any sort. Leaving an alien/hostile fleet in complete control of the Atlantic is not anyone's idea of a great plan. Imagine the consequences of a European navy bombarding any of the heavily populated West Coast cities while the US sent their entire fleet to combat the Japanese. The US would have to leave at significant portion of their Navy just to safeguard against this possiblity, even if the European powers showed no inclination to give it a try.

They really wouldn't have had to commit much. Running battleships and carriers up and down the coast to bombard the US would have left them highly vulnerable to aircraft. There was also a whole lot of Atlantic to cross to achieve that, so with minimal resources left in the Atlantic you could have had plenty of early warning.

Look at the amount of shipping the US committed to guarding the convoys to the UK, and to preparing for the Normandy landing. Despite that, and all the resources they used to fight in Europe they still trounced the Japanese. I just can't see a scenario where anything could pose a threat to the US to the point where they couldn't defeat the Japanese.

Now, without the UK on their side I doubt the US could have threatened a Nazi Europe either, because posing a threat across the Atlantic is just that hard.

This does of course depend on how the US reacts to the affairs in Europe. Would they back Britain (and therefore Germany) in the war against the Soviets? Or do the exact opposite? If it's the former than they would be free to engage in a war with Japan at their whim, if it's the latter they may be more willing to strengthen ties with an ally in Asia and ignore the atrocities being committed by the Japanese. (The poor relations between Japan and Russia would be an issue though).

It needs to be remembered how much nations and their citizenry really do want to be moral. Democratic countries just didn't buddy up with nations that were slaughtering loads of people.

I guess it might be possible if Stalin's atrocities were more fully reported, while those committed by Japan and Germany were less well known.

And then there's the possibility of the US choosing to become as isolationist as possible, which would still likely lead to a war between Japan and the US.

The US desire to be isolationist is generally overstated. They were keen to keep out of another European bloodbath, but there was never any hesitation to involve themselves in Pacific matters, which they looked to dominate. Even before the Japanese started doing horrible things the US was looking to curb their expansion.

Incidentally, where's JEB these days? He can usually be relied on to provide valuable insight in historical threads.

Frankly I think a better topic would have been, what if Britain stayed out of WWI, which was far more likely. Without British/American shipping being attacked, the US would likely have never entered either.

What would the world have been like?

Still under British control, most likely. Mainland Europe would be mostly German.

Albatross wrote:Still under British control, most likely. Mainland Europe would be mostly German.

I'm thinking it becomes similar to the Franco Prussian War. France loses. Russia loses and maybe has a revolution. Italy is fine-the evil Austrian Hungarians can't get through the mountains to get them. The positive-no Hitler. The negative, all the evil dictatorial monarchies continue to exist.

Interestingly - the Ottooman Empire would have continued.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:Still under British control, most likely. Mainland Europe would be mostly German.

I'm thinking it becomes similar to the Franco Prussian War. France loses. Russia loses and maybe has a revolution. Italy is fine-the evil Austrian Hungarians can't get through the mountains to get them. The positive-no Hitler. The negative, all the evil dictatorial monarchies continue to exist.

The UK's political system is virtually identical today to how it was then. Obviously the relevant colonial administrations no longer exist, but the system is virtually a carbon copy.

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:Still under British control, most likely. Mainland Europe would be mostly German.

I'm thinking it becomes similar to the Franco Prussian War. France loses. Russia loses and maybe has a revolution. Italy is fine-the evil Austrian Hungarians can't get through the mountains to get them. The positive-no Hitler. The negative, all the evil dictatorial monarchies continue to exist.

The UK's political system is virtually identical today to how it was then. Obviously the relevant colonial administrations no longer exist, but the system is virtually a carbon copy.

Correcto Alby. Britain and France were democracies. However Germany, Austria Hungarian empire, Ottoman Empire, and mother Russia weren't.

Ah, gotcha. Thought you were making a jab at Britain.

I'm shocked that you weren't, if I'm being honest!

Albatross wrote:Ah, gotcha. Thought you were making a jab at Britain.

I'm shocked that you weren't, if I'm being honest!

Not this time. You don't tweak the nose of the country that views haggis as a delicacy too often! besides, I'm advertising Texas to Australians as the new place to be, now that their island apparently is sinking. So I have to be slightly nice.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:Ah, gotcha. Thought you were making a jab at Britain.

I'm shocked that you weren't, if I'm being honest!

Not this time. You don't tweak the nose of the country that views haggis as a delicacy too often! besides, I'm advertising Texas to Australians as the new place to be, now that their island apparently is sinking. So I have to be slightly nice.

You could also be very condescending and snooty as you have a far superior island to theirs, given that the island you live on spans TWO continents (N. + S. America) and to my knowledge, is rising every day.

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:Ah, gotcha. Thought you were making a jab at Britain.

I'm shocked that you weren't, if I'm being honest!

Not this time. You don't tweak the nose of the country that views haggis as a delicacy too often! besides, I'm advertising Texas to Australians as the new place to be, now that their island apparently is sinking. So I have to be slightly nice.

You could also be very condescending and snooty as you have a far superior island to theirs, given that the island you live on spans TWO continents (N. + S. America) and to my knowledge, is rising every day.

Can't work. Texas is the next best thing to Australia in terms of crazy. I'm trying to upgrade the state to #1 via the importation of crazy Aussies and drop bears, and Aussie beer, which is still way better than US beer. With our scorpions, killer spiders, alligators, and occasional hurricane I am sure they would feel right at home.

Frazzled wrote:

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:Ah, gotcha. Thought you were making a jab at Britain.

I'm shocked that you weren't, if I'm being honest!

Not this time. You don't tweak the nose of the country that views haggis as a delicacy too often! besides, I'm advertising Texas to Australians as the new place to be, now that their island apparently is sinking. So I have to be slightly nice.

You could also be very condescending and snooty as you have a far superior island to theirs, given that the island you live on spans TWO continents (N. + S. America) and to my knowledge, is rising every day.

Can't work. Texas is the next best thing to Australia in terms of crazy. I'm trying to upgrade the state to #1 via the importation of crazy Aussies and drop bears, and Aussie beer, which is still way better than US beer. With our scorpions, killer spiders, alligators, and occasional hurricane I am sure they would feel right at home.

How does Texas compete with Alaksa?

Alaska has bears and rednecks. Texas would kick its ass. They have like no lethal animal except bears. Bears? Really? Thats it? No snakes? No spiders? No scorpions? No sharks? No evil jellyfish lurking, waiting to strike? They do have a high redneck quotient but we have East Texas. No contest.

Plus its like really hot, West texas is dry, and we have both shrimp and barbeques. Its like Aussie Disneyland.

Frazzled wrote:Alaska has bears and rednecks. Texas would kick its ass. They have like no lethal animal except bears. Bears? Really? Thats it? No snakes? No spiders? No scorpions? No sharks? No evil jellyfish lurking, waiting to strike? They do have a high redneck quotient but we have East Texas. No contest.

Plus its like really hot, West texas is dry, and we have both shrimp and barbeques. Its like Aussie Disneyland.

I would think the frigid cold would be a bit more dangerous than the animals.

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Alaska has bears and rednecks. Texas would kick its ass. They have like no lethal animal except bears. Bears? Really? Thats it? No snakes? No spiders? No scorpions? No sharks? No evil jellyfish lurking, waiting to strike? They do have a high redneck quotient but we have East Texas. No contest.

Plus its like really hot, West texas is dry, and we have both shrimp and barbeques. Its like Aussie Disneyland.

I would think the frigid cold would be a bit more dangerous than the animals.

Meh, get a coat. Absolutely no interest for an Aussie other than as a tourist spot. If an Aussie wants all the perils of home, they need to come to Texas. Plus, once we have added drop bears and crocodiles to our reportoire we may have to go kick Oklahoma's ass, just well, because. We can't go after New Mexico because frankly its like the Forbidden Zone over there, and no one s with Louisiana, not even Mordor East (Leichtenstein).

Frazzled wrote:

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Alaska has bears and rednecks. Texas would kick its ass. They have like no lethal animal except bears. Bears? Really? Thats it? No snakes? No spiders? No scorpions? No sharks? No evil jellyfish lurking, waiting to strike? They do have a high redneck quotient but we have East Texas. No contest.

Plus its like really hot, West texas is dry, and we have both shrimp and barbeques. Its like Aussie Disneyland.

I would think the frigid cold would be a bit more dangerous than the animals.

Meh, get a coat. Absolutely no interest for an Aussie other than as a tourist spot. If an Aussie wants all the perils of home, they need to come to Texas. Plus, once we have added drop bears and crocodiles to our reportoire we may have to go kick Oklahoma's ass, just well, because. We can't go after New Mexico because frankly its like the Forbidden Zone over there, and no one s with Louisiana, not even Mordor East (Leichtenstein).

Okay, you convinced me.

Now how do I become Australian so that way I can emigrate to Texas?

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Alaska has bears and rednecks. Texas would kick its ass. They have like no lethal animal except bears. Bears? Really? Thats it? No snakes? No spiders? No scorpions? No sharks? No evil jellyfish lurking, waiting to strike? They do have a high redneck quotient but we have East Texas. No contest.

Plus its like really hot, West texas is dry, and we have both shrimp and barbeques. Its like Aussie Disneyland.

I would think the frigid cold would be a bit more dangerous than the animals.

Meh, get a coat. Absolutely no interest for an Aussie other than as a tourist spot. If an Aussie wants all the perils of home, they need to come to Texas. Plus, once we have added drop bears and crocodiles to our reportoire we may have to go kick Oklahoma's ass, just well, because. We can't go after New Mexico because frankly its like the Forbidden Zone over there, and no one s with Louisiana, not even Mordor East (Leichtenstein).

Okay, you convinced me.

Now how do I become Australian so that way I can emigrate to Texas?

I hear if you kiss a kuala you're granted asylum immediately, although I could be incorrect and you might have to kiss a crocodile. be gentle, they can be ticklish.

sebster wrote:Japan needed resources and markets. When European powers cranked up their tariffs it no longer had markets for its industry. When the US cut off oil in the wake of Japanese actions in China, it lost key resources. Their answer was to bring all of Asia under its fold, and key to this was the Phillipines, and that meant making the US give it up. War with the US was inevitable.

And no, Japan couldn't just take bits of Russia with impunity. It tried that in 1938 and was utterly spanked. At which point Northern expansion was abandoned in favour of Southern expansion.

However it's a different story in our fictional 1941, with Germany, Finland and co. knocking on Moscow's door. Remember in this history Britain and France either neutral or actively involved. With a neutral Britain (and no German help for the Italians if indeed the Italian campaigns happen at all) there is no Greek distraction or need to form the Africa Korps and no Allied supply ships for the Soviets. There is no reason that Moscow and Leningrad won't fall in 1941.

Japan may have taken a huge gamble attacking European colonies and the US fleet while Europe was distracted at home. Doing so while the British and French have nothing to do is insanity. So the US won't provide oil? So what the newly Fascist Britain and France certainly will. Unless of course the Soviet union collapses so quickly that Europe's colonial eyes begin to look ever more eastward...

Frazzled wrote:Frankly I think a better topic would have been, what if Britain stayed out of WWI, which was far more likely.

That is a much better question. I'm going to assume the Germans leave Belgium alone, and so never provoking the UK to get involved. This narrows the front of the war considerably, so you'd still bog down in trench warfare.

Without British/American shipping being attacked, the US would likely have never entered either.

What would the world have been like?

The Russians would have collapsed at about the same time. The French would collapse some time after that (as they almost collapsed as it was, even with UK and US support). The war would end with French surrender long before the Germans reached Paris.

Reparations would flow the other way, from France to Germany, but would be on nothing like the scale the Germans had to pay. Now you'd have bitterness in France instead of Germany, and far more chance of a nationalist loon coming to power there. The thing to remember there is that France was just as anti-semitic as Germany, possibly more so.

The point of difference might be that a French Hitler (le Hitler?) wouldn't have been as militarily successful. On the one hand, France has a powerful military history and strong engine for war, it just sucked at it under the Republic - with le Hitler we wouldn't have that impediment. On the other hand, the Nazis were incredibly fortunate to be as successful as they were, and there's no reason to think le Hitler would be anywhere near as fortunate.

That said, there's no guarantee that hardship following a lost war necessarily produces a Hitler, but the idea of le Hitler is funny so let's roll with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Interestingly - the Ottooman Empire would have continued.

The writing was on the wall, though, wasn't it? The Great War kicked in the crumbling wall once and for all, but it was rotten all the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

George Spiggott wrote:However it's a different story in our fictional 1941, with Germany, Finland and co. knocking on Moscow's door. Remember in this history Britain and France either neutral or actively involved. With a neutral Britain (and no German help for the Italians if indeed the Italian campaigns happen at all) there is no Greek distraction or need to form the Africa Korps and no Allied supply ships for the Soviets. There is no reason that Moscow and Leningrad won't fall in 1941.

There remains every reason Moscow and Leningrad won't fall in to . The addition of Afrika Korps adds almost nothing to Germany's overall fighting preparedness.

Basic reality is that Germany failed because it wasn't organised well enough to complete the encirclement of the Russian in the early stages of Barbarossa, found Moscow was a really long way to go while maintaining supply, and without the early win they were much less capable of replacing losses than the Soviets. Much as people like to think otherwise, the Soviets beat the Germans, and it is very debateable whether the other Allies could have changed that.

Japan may have taken a huge gamble attacking European colonies and the US fleet while Europe was distracted at home. Doing so while the British and French have nothing to do is insanity. So the US won't provide oil? So what the newly Fascist Britain and France certainly will. Unless of course the Soviet union collapses so quickly that Europe's colonial eyes begin to look ever more eastward...

Japan would still have territorial ambitions, and I'm guessing we're assuming the militant faction still won over the moderates, or are we changing that as well?

If that remains the same, then Britain, even if it's fascist, would still look to protect its colonies, only now it would be much more capable of doing so. Similarly, the Free French colonies would likely continue to oppose Japan and the Axis powers (but could no longer count on British support, and would likely be a target for British expansion). The US would certainly look to limit Japanese expansion.

The reality is that Japan wanted to expand, and the US didn't want that. The US could put an extreme limitation on Japan by controlling the flow of resources, and so war was inevitable.

Frazzled wrote:Alaska has bears and rednecks. Texas would kick its ass. They have like no lethal animal except bears. Bears? Really? Thats it? No snakes? No spiders? No scorpions? No sharks? No evil jellyfish lurking, waiting to strike? They do have a high redneck quotient but we have East Texas. No contest.

Plus its like really hot, West texas is dry, and we have both shrimp and barbeques. Its like Aussie Disneyland.

What about Arizona were crazy

sebster wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I don't think it's the distasteful nature of the Nazi party that made a UK alliance difficult, but rather the aggresive expansion. And really, the idea that Britain would go back on one promise (Poland) or possibly direct their hostility towards the Soviets instead (rather than Germany) for the invasion, this idea is far fetched, but not completely random.

Except there was a very strong moral distaste for Hitler, to the point where the more respectable nations just wouldn't have worked with the guy. Tolerated or ignored him, sure, but not actively engaged in military operations with him.

On what grounds? The Final Solution wasn't executed until the war was well under way, and you yourself said that other European nations were every bit as anti-semitic.

Want. Very do want.

There's never been a prettier plane.

Watched a documentary on how Hurricane's were actually the deciding factor, given the easiness in construction and repairs. Ignored it completely becuase Spitfires are that cool.

It wouldn't really have to be an invasion, or even a landing force of any sort. Leaving an alien/hostile fleet in complete control of the Atlantic is not anyone's idea of a great plan. Imagine the consequences of a European navy bombarding any of the heavily populated West Coast cities while the US sent their entire fleet to combat the Japanese. The US would have to leave at significant portion of their Navy just to safeguard against this possiblity, even if the European powers showed no inclination to give it a try.

They really wouldn't have had to commit much. Running battleships and carriers up and down the coast to bombard the US would have left them highly vulnerable to aircraft. There was also a whole lot of Atlantic to cross to achieve that, so with minimal resources left in the Atlantic you could have had plenty of early warning.

Look at the amount of shipping the US committed to guarding the convoys to the UK, and to preparing for the Normandy landing. Despite that, and all the resources they used to fight in Europe they still trounced the Japanese. I just can't see a scenario where anything could pose a threat to the US to the point where they couldn't defeat the Japanese.

My point wasn't that the US wouldn't be able to defeat the Japanese (unless there was some sort of catastrophic reversal at Midway), but I was refuting Frazzled's arguement that the US would have rolled over them in short order. Essentially, if there was a war between the US and Japan, which you have pointed out was all but inevtiable, I beleive it would have turned out much like it did regardless of the affairs in Europe.

Now, without the UK on their side I doubt the US could have threatened a Nazi Europe either, because posing a threat across the Atlantic is just that hard.

Would that make neutrality between the two a likely outcome?

It needs to be remembered how much nations and their citizenry really do want to be moral. Democratic countries just didn't buddy up with nations that were slaughtering loads of people.

I never took you for one to hold such high hopes for governments, given how this was repeatedly proved false in the Cold War. Are you saying people and Governments were more moral before then?

I guess it might be possible if Stalin's atrocities were more fully reported, while those committed by Japan and Germany were less well known.

What atrocities, aside from Kristalnacht, were widely reported regarding Germany? (Before the invasion of Poland)

Emperors Faithful wrote:On what grounds? The Final Solution wasn't executed until the war was well under way, and you yourself said that other European nations were every bit as anti-semitic.

Extermination didn't begin until the situation on the Eastern Front turned bad, but concentration camps were built as early as 1933. There was a difference between thinking the trade unionists, socialists, gays, Jews, Gypsies and other groups Jews were a different and untrustworthy group of people, and actually placing them in forced labour camps.

There was also Hitler's overt territorial ambitions. The plain fact is that diplomacy between the European powers in the 30s was all about what to do with the Hitler problem.

My point wasn't that the US wouldn't be able to defeat the Japanese (unless there was some sort of catastrophic reversal at Midway), but I was refuting Frazzled's arguement that the US would have rolled over them in short order. Essentially, if there was a war between the US and Japan, which you have pointed out was all but inevtiable, I beleive it would have turned out much like it did regardless of the affairs in Europe.

Interesting point, and you might be right. More resources or not, you're still basically piling a bunch of guys onto an island, pacifying it then using it as a base to build for an assault on the next island. There's only so much time saving additional troops could offer, I guess.

The result would have been quicker, but whether it was a lot quicker or just a little quicker I don't know.

Would that make neutrality between the two a likely outcome?

Given the close cultural ties and trade links, I'd say neutrality at a bare minimum, with an alliance much more likely. Of course, we're in crazy land with the UK siding with Nazi Germany, so I don't know what we can take for granted in this hypothetical...

I never took you for one to hold such high hopes for governments, given how this was repeatedly proved false in the Cold War. Are you saying people and Governments were more moral before then?

Governments weren't more moral. But there is a big difference between giving arms to some third tier dictatorship to fight some other third tier dictatorship, and engaging in combined military operations with another country. Democratic, developed nations are much pickier about who they directly fight alongside.

Right now NATO has a clear requirement that member nations must be democratic, for instance. France and the UK, who had centuries of bad blood between them, moved much closer together at the end of the 19th C and start of the 20th C, in opposition to non-democratic Germany.

The thing is, as much as government do deals with dodgy countries, those dealing are kept to a low profile, or are completely confidential. Overt, close dealings with bad governments is an incredibly rare thing.

What atrocities, aside from Kristalnacht, were widely reported regarding Germany? (Before the invasion of Poland)

As I mentioned above, the concentration camps were in place in 1933.

sebster wrote:
Extermination didn't begin until the situation on the Eastern Front turned bad, but concentration camps were built as early as 1933. There was a difference between thinking the trade unionists, socialists, gays, Jews, Gypsies and other groups Jews were a different and untrustworthy group of people, and actually placing them in forced labour camps.

There was also Hitler's overt territorial ambitions. The plain fact is that diplomacy between the European powers in the 30s was all about what to do with the Hitler problem.

Fair enough, though I hadn't realized that they'd been more widely reported than the affairs occuring in Russia. Obviously the relations that European Powers had with Germany and Russia were both brittle, but Hitler came across as the more antagonistic.

Interesting point, and you might be right. More resources or not, you're still basically piling a bunch of guys onto an island, pacifying it then using it as a base to build for an assault on the next island. There's only so much time saving additional troops could offer, I guess.

The result would have been quicker, but whether it was a lot quicker or just a little quicker I don't know.

Still depends on how rapid the Nuclear Weapons research would proceed, or how long Japan could hold out against a devastating bombing campaign before surrender (I don't consider an Invasion of Japan to be considered more likely than the former options).

Given the close cultural ties and trade links, I'd say neutrality at a bare minimum, with an alliance much more likely. Of course, we're in crazy land with the UK siding with Nazi Germany, so I don't know what we can take for granted in this hypothetical...

Well, I think the OP may have been incorrect in having the UK side with Germany, but having them remain neutral isn't unfathomable.

Governments weren't more moral. But there is a big difference between giving arms to some third tier dictatorship to fight some other third tier dictatorship, and engaging in combined military operations with another country. Democratic, developed nations are much pickier about who they directly fight alongside.

I agree with you that it's easier to supply dicatorships and pit them against one another rather than actually have troops supporting them, but this didn't stop the US deploying troops alongside the corrupt Diem(and subsequent) Regime.

Right now NATO has a clear requirement that member nations must be democratic, for instance. France and the UK, who had centuries of bad blood between them, moved much closer together at the end of the 19th C and start of the 20th C, in opposition to non-democratic Germany.

The thing is, as much as government do deals with dodgy countries, those dealing are kept to a low profile, or are completely confidential. Overt, close dealings with bad governments is an incredibly rare thing.

I don't see why you think that, we are still talking about Pre-WWII right?

What atrocities, aside from Kristalnacht, were widely reported regarding Germany? (Before the invasion of Poland)

As I mentioned above, the concentration camps were in place in 1933.

Major crux of the war was Britain declaring war on Germany, when it would appear Mr Hitler thought Britain would either sit on the fence, or join him...

How was that ever a "Major Crux"? As soon as Germany started with the military campaign the British landed an Expeditionary Force in mainland Europe to try to help the Poles and it fought alongside the French (where did you think the British force that was routed at Dunkirk came from?). There was never any question of the British people siding against the Germans and it wouldn't have mattered who was Prime Minister.

Swordbreaker wrote:

Major crux of the war was Britain declaring war on Germany, when it would appear Mr Hitler thought Britain would either sit on the fence, or join him...

How was that ever a "Major Crux"? As soon as Germany started with the military campaign the British landed an Expeditionary Force in mainland Europe to try to help the Poles and it fought alongside the French (where did you think the British force that was routed at Dunkirk came from?). There was never any question of the British people siding against the Germans and it wouldn't have mattered who was Prime Minister.

Party pooper.

Besides, it's not unfathomable to suggest that Britain would break one more promise.

sebster wrote:There remains every reason Moscow and Leningrad won't fall in to . The addition of Afrika Korps adds almost nothing to Germany's overall fighting preparedness.

Basic reality is that Germany failed because it wasn't organised well enough to complete the encirclement of the Russian in the early stages of Barbarossa, found Moscow was a really long way to go while maintaining supply, and without the early win they were much less capable of replacing losses than the Soviets. Much as people like to think otherwise, the Soviets beat the Germans, and it is very debateable whether the other Allies could have changed that.

The extra panzer division or two probalby won't make that much of a dent but the extra three (or so) months gained from not fighting in the Balkans earlier in the same year makes a big difference. Reaching the outskirts of Moscow in September rather than December is significant.

sebster wrote:Japan would still have territorial ambitions, and I'm guessing we're assuming the militant faction still won over the moderates, or are we changing that as well?

No, what we are changing is that Japan would have to take on three of the worlds most powerful navies alone. It can deliver one 'Pearl Harbour', it cannot deliver three. There simply isn't the 'six month gap' that the Japanese relied upon. Because even if they do 'Pearl Harbour' they still have to face the combined, and until now unmolested, British and French Fleets. Then once that window has expired they must face all three.

sebster wrote:If that remains the same, then Britain, even if it's fascist, would still look to protect its colonies, only now it would be much more capable of doing so. Similarly, the Free French colonies would likely continue to oppose Japan and the Axis powers (but could no longer count on British support, and would likely be a target for British expansion). The US would certainly look to limit Japanese expansion.

The reality is that Japan wanted to expand, and the US didn't want that. The US could put an extreme limitation on Japan by controlling the flow of resources, and so war was inevitable.

I don't see a direct reason to suppose that Britain and France will not unite against a common foe if that foe attacks both British and French interests. A strong Japan is either in the interests of all of Europe, or more likely none of it. The island hopping strategy that the Japanese chose is just not viable.

Don't b e so sure there. Would Britain had gone to war over Singapore? France over Indochine? Why are we assuming Germany does not eventually invade France again? the USSR was a natural enemy, but so was France to those who wanted revenge for WWI.

Frazzled wrote:Don't b e so sure there. Would Britain had gone to war over Singapore? France over Indochine? Why are we assuming Germany does not eventually invade France again? the USSR was a natural enemy, but so was France to those who wanted revenge for WWI.

Is there a reason they would not go to war over these territories? Singapore is a highly significant location, the suez of the east if you will. Again France has seen to be historically in favour of going to war to defend its interests in French Indochina. Germany could invade France, weather it does or not French fleet will be available to defend French colonies.

Good lord! 4 pages and barely an inkling of jingoism!

Really rather enjoying this whole discussion, and I hope others are too.

Now, one thing I do see a lot of is 'US would nuke' etc. But given the expense of the development of a Nuclear Bomb, how likely is it that the US would have developed it at all, let alone felt threatened enough to us it? I mean, consider this. Assuming the bomb is developed, and even eventually deployed, an up-armed, more or less unified Europe isn't going to just give a round of applause when the big boom goes off. Indeed, the US would likley just be drawing attention to itself.

Again this is purely hypothetical and based off my already admitedly shoddy historical knowledge, so feel fee to correct any fundamental mistakes (yes, even the facepalms).

George Spiggott wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Don't b e so sure there. Would Britain had gone to war over Singapore? France over Indochine? Why are we assuming Germany does not eventually invade France again? the USSR was a natural enemy, but so was France to those who wanted revenge for WWI.

Is there a reason they would not go to war over these territories? Singapore is a highly significant location, the suez of the east if you will. Again France has seen to be historically in favour of going to war to defend its interests in French Indochina. Germany could invade France, weather it does or not French fleet will be available to defend French colonies.

1. Britain was in the middle of the Depression and had survived WWI. Rightfully, they had no stomach for a full scale war with anyone, much less Japan over some island on the other side of the world. If they and France had there would have been no "Sittenkreig" in the first place. Its on thing to put down the irish. Its another thing to travel around the world and fight the guys who obliterated the Russian Navy just a few years before. Now that I think about I don't see why Japan attacked the US. They could have taken Singapore/Malaysia and been on its merry way.


2. French fleet after Germany invaded? Er, then how come this supposed French fleet didn't fight in the real thing again?

Frazz: RE the French fleet....Britain no daft.

Britain scuttle the lot of it.

Frazzled wrote:1. Britain was in the middle of the Depression and had survived WWI. Rightfully, they had no stomach for a full scale war with anyone, much less Japan over some island on the other side of the world. If they and France had there would have been no "Sittenkreig" in the first place. Its on thing to put down the irish. Its another thing to travel around the world and fight the guys who obliterated the Russian Navy just a few years before. Now that I think about I don't see why Japan attacked the US. They could have taken Singapore/Malaysia and been on its merry way.

You are underestimating the importance of Singapore, it is the key to Britain's wealth in the east. Nobody cared who beat the Russians 35 years ago.

Frazzled wrote:2. French fleet after Germany invaded? Er, then how come this supposed French fleet didn't fight in the real thing again?

I'm no expert, but while I understand that is was thought unlikely that tanks could be driven through the Arnennes it is totally impossible to get a Battle cruiser through them. In reality the French fleet was sunk by the British and the French after the fall of France.

Mr Mystery wrote:Frazz: RE the French fleet....Britain no daft.

Britain scuttle the lot of it.

And why would that be different in this scenario again?
1) France invaded by Germany and loses - their ships are esacpe battlestar gallactica style or surrender and become German.
2) France not invaded (Germany leaves W. Europe alone with a hearty Go East young Nazi!)
France would still be focused on Europe, and had even less desire to be involved in a major war, especially one for a mere colony.

I should note, unless they had an aircraft carrier France's fleet is utterly irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

George Spiggott wrote:

Frazzled wrote:1. Britain was in the middle of the Depression and had survived WWI. Rightfully, they had no stomach for a full scale war with anyone, much less Japan over some island on the other side of the world. If they and France had there would have been no "Sittenkreig" in the first place. Its on thing to put down the irish. Its another thing to travel around the world and fight the guys who obliterated the Russian Navy just a few years before. Now that I think about I don't see why Japan attacked the US. They could have taken Singapore/Malaysia and been on its merry way.

You are underestimating the importance of Singapore, it is the key to Britain's wealth in the east. Nobody cared who beat the Russians 35 years ago.

Frazzled wrote:2. French fleet after Germany invaded? Er, then how come this supposed French fleet didn't fight in the real thing again?

I'm no expert, but while I understand that is was thought unlikely that tanks could be driven through the Arnennes it is totally impossible to get a Battle cruiser through them. In reality the French fleet was sunk by the British and the French after the fall of France.

No I am not. Just prior to WWII, neither Britain nor France had any stomach for another war, nor real caapcity to fight it. They are in the Depression and their populations have no desire to lose another generation of young men to the battlefield. Any government starting a major war would likely have fallen.

Just because they have no appetite for war doesn't mean they aren't going to defend their own teritory.

whatwhat wrote:Just because they have no appetite for war doesn't mean they aren't going to defend their own teritory.

Exactly, a short colonial war is good for the economy. Japan wasn't in the same league as Germany, nor was it thought to be.

I'm just struggling with idea that someone can dismiss Brtains major port in asia or "the Gibraltar of the east" as "some island on the other side of the world."

Emperors Faithful wrote:Fair enough, though I hadn't realized that they'd been more widely reported than the affairs occuring in Russia. Obviously the relations that European Powers had with Germany and Russia were both brittle, but Hitler came across as the more antagonistic.

Neither was incredibly well reported, but the world was certainly a lot more aware of Germany's failings than it was of Russia's.

Well, I think the OP may have been incorrect in having the UK side with Germany, but having them remain neutral isn't unfathomable.

Yeah, I thought from the beginning neutrality was a somewhat plausible scenario, while alliance with Nazi Germany was not.

I agree with you that it's easier to supply dicatorships and pit them against one another rather than actually have troops supporting them, but this didn't stop the US deploying troops alongside the corrupt Diem(and subsequent) Regime.

True. But that was very much something they fell into. They also deployed troops to aid South Korea, who at the time were a corrupt military dictatorship.

But I don't think those situations can really compare to aiding a dictatorship in a war of aggression, such as Nazi Germany undertook.

I don't see why you think that, we are still talking about Pre-WWII right?

Because I can't think of a democratic, developed country that's allied with a non-democratic country to undertake a war of expansion. Can you?

Interesting, though again was this more widely reported than the underhand movements of other countries at the time?

Yeah, because Germany had been a democracy, for a brief time. And it had much closer trade and cultural ties than countries outside or on the fringe of Europe, such as Russia. And they hosted the Olympics, they were very much under the direct gaze of the world.

Krystalnacht made worldwide headlines, while Stalin's Great Purge, where he killed about 700,000 was not reported at all (outside of a handful of show trials of some of the more famous party members),


Automatically Appended Next Post:

George Spiggott wrote:The extra panzer division or two probalby won't make that much of a dent but the extra three (or so) months gained from not fighting in the Balkans earlier in the same year makes a big difference. Reaching the outskirts of Moscow in September rather than December is significant.

Why wouldn't the Balkans campaign have still happened? There wouldn't have been British troops there, but they didn't shift the timelines that dramatically. Even still, German troops were massing on the border with Russia long before the end of the Balkans campaign.

No, what we are changing is that Japan would have to take on three of the worlds most powerful navies alone. It can deliver one 'Pearl Harbour', it cannot deliver three. There simply isn't the 'six month gap' that the Japanese relied upon. Because even if they do 'Pearl Harbour' they still have to face the combined, and until now unmolested, British and French Fleets. Then once that window has expired they must face all three.

I agree that the Japanese wouldn't have been able to defeat all three, in fact I doubt they would have been able to defeat the UK at all if they weren't tied up in Europe, just as they were incapable of defeating the US. But would the Japanese have to fight all three? Again, this is where I'm not sure what we can and can't assume after the crazyland position of Britain aiding Germany. With this new, bizarrely amoral UK siding with Germany, might they have been willing to look on with indifference at a Japanese attack on the US, and just ensure it's own colonies remain protected?

I don't see a direct reason to suppose that Britain and France will not unite against a common foe if that foe attacks both British and French interests. A strong Japan is either in the interests of all of Europe, or more likely none of it. The island hopping strategy that the Japanese chose is just not viable.

No, but we can assume Japan would have adjusted it's approach to account for political realities, just as it did in the real world - focussing on British and French colonies once their navy was removed, and only attacking the US when it became absolutely necessary. Why couldn't Japan adjust to the hypothetical, attacking French colonies, possibly splitting them with the UK, then turning on the isolated US alone. Which would still lead to disaster, of course...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Don't b e so sure there. Would Britain had gone to war over Singapore? France over Indochine? Why are we assuming Germany does not eventually invade France again? the USSR was a natural enemy, but so was France to those who wanted revenge for WWI.

Yes, Britain still would have gone to war over Singapore. You don't post 80,000 troops to a place you aren't going to bother defending.

I think we're assuming Germany still invades France, and occupies it quickly. Which may actually debatable, with Germany no longer the clear underdog and possibly able to remain supplied by it's new friend the UK, they probably wouldn't have been been tempted into considering the radical ideas of lightning war. Also, keeping the UK onside would likely involve respecting Belgian neutrality, which considerably reduces the width of the front. In that situation the superior numbers and material of the French might have produced a different outcome. Or maybe not, the French were still incompetently led, and if the British did take part and raid the French coast or actually put troops into France then they're in all kinds of trouble.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:1. Britain was in the middle of the Depression and had survived WWI. Rightfully, they had no stomach for a full scale war with anyone, much less Japan over some island on the other side of the world.

You have a very strange idea of the importance the UK placed on it's colonies. They were seen as integral to the UK's economic system and it's geopolitical position. This is why they deployed tens of thousands of troops to their colonies. Their priority only changed when Britain itself came under direct threat of invasion.

If they and France had there would have been no "Sittenkreig" in the first place. Its on thing to put down the irish. Its another thing to travel around the world and fight the guys who obliterated the Russian Navy just a few years before. Now that I think about I don't see why Japan attacked the US. They could have taken Singapore/Malaysia and been on its merry way.

Phillipines. Oil.

And again, the failure of Britain to defend it's colonies was entirely due to it being even more concerned about invasion from Germany. It's one thing to post half your navy and tens of thousands of troops to defend your colonies, it's another to keep them there when the Germans have routed your army on the continent and are threatening invasion of your homeland.

2. French fleet after Germany invaded? Er, then how come this supposed French fleet didn't fight in the real thing again?

There was a French fleet, albeit not a particularly large one. After the fall of France it sided with the Vichy Government, and the Brits sank it, in Morocco if I recall correctly.

EDIT - Just looked it up, the fleet was stationed in Senegal. And only represents a portion of the total French fleet, much of the rest was stationed in UK controlled ports, and was persuaded to join the Free French forces, or disarmed.

Frazzled wrote:I should note, unless they had an aircraft carrier France's fleet is utterly irrelevant.

They did indeed have 'an aircraft carrier'. Given this limitation France's best option is to act as support for the US carriers to make up the loss of ships lost at Pearl Harbour.

Ayah they appear to have had one. Sounds like a target opportunity...


I'm still trying to get how Germany invades France but Britain doesn't go to war. Are you really saying Germany does nothing after invading Poland but gear up and attack the USSR? You do know France and Britain were at war with Germany at that point correct?

sebster wrote:Why wouldn't the Balkans campaign have still happened? There wouldn't have been British troops there, but they didn't shift the timelines that dramatically. Even still, German troops were massing on the border with Russia long before the end of the Balkans campaign.

It may or may not happen, but what is important is that the Germans are not involved. My reasoning being is that Hitler has secured peace with Britain explicitly to gain an open hand when attacking the Soviet union. I don't see him throwing that away for a 1/3 share of Greece. I don't see him throwing it away to help the Japanese either.

sebster wrote:I agree that the Japanese wouldn't have been able to defeat all three, in fact I doubt they would have been able to defeat the UK at all if they weren't tied up in Europe, just as they were incapable of defeating the US. But would the Japanese have to fight all three? Again, this is where I'm not sure what we can and can't assume after the crazyland position of Britain aiding Germany. With this new, bizarrely amoral UK siding with Germany, might they have been willing to look on with indifference at a Japanese attack on the US, and just ensure it's own colonies remain protected?

I don't see the major 'Allied' powers allowing Japan to snipe their colonies one by one. In contrast eastern Russia is relatively easy pickings if Germany is doing better than they were historically.

Re: "crazyland position": Both you and Frazzled point this out, and you're both right but the "crazyland position" is the concept conceived by the OP ("what if Britain had joined with Germany?"), I'm just fleshing it out. I don't believe it's possible any more than you two do.

My take on this is that sometime between September 1939 and June 1940 the "crazyland position" happens. As a result Britain, Germany and France become best fascist buddies. It doesn't work in reality but it works in crazyland. I can't think of any other outcome that works, not even in crazyland.

Frazzled wrote:I'm still trying to get how Germany invades France but Britain doesn't go to war. Are you really saying Germany does nothing after invading Poland but gear up and attack the USSR? You do know France and Britain were at war with Germany at that point correct?

Well, yes. The point of a what-if scenario is to wonder what might have happened if things were different. In this case, the OP's what-if speculates over a UK that doesn't consider Poland sufficient cause to start a war with Germany, and maybe they even even ally with Germany (one is more likely than the other, but neither is plausible).

You didn't comment on the issues I raised with your speculation over Japanese expansion into British colonies...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

George Spiggott wrote:It may or may not happen, but what is important is that the Germans are not involved. My reasoning being is that Hitler has secured peace with Britain explicitly to gain an open hand when attacking the Soviet union. I don't see him throwing that away for a 1/3 share of Greece. I don't see him throwing it away to help the Japanese either.

Would occupation of the Balkans be a trigger for breaking the peace with the UK? That's where the crazyland position comes up again... if we've changed the UK's stance to be alright with occupation of Poland, why would the Balkans be any different?

]I don't see the major 'Allied' powers allowing Japan to snipe their colonies one by one. In contrast eastern Russia is relatively easy pickings if Germany is doing better than they were historically.

I'm wondering if this newly amoral Britain might have been willing to deal with the Japanese, and simply ignore the Japanese attack on the US. Which, isn't actually that unlikely, everyone knew about the Co-Prosperity Sphere and what it meant for the French, UK and US, yet the US didn't step in to help while Japan was attacking UK colonies. Is there any reason to presume the UK would act any differently if US assets were attacked? Particularly when we consider this new, evil UK...

It's hard to envision Germany having done better than they were in 1941, and the Japanese still didn't screw with the Russians. The navy had won the debate by that point, and the nation was now committed to expansion southwards, and even it wanted to shift back North the Japanese were piling so many troops into China to keep it pacified that another primarily land based invasion would have been an incredible stretch.

Re: "crazyland position": Both you and Frazzled point this out, and you're both right but the "crazyland position" is the concept conceived by the OP ("what if Britain had joined with Germany?"), I'm just fleshing it out. I don't believe it's possible any more than you two do.

Absolutely, I'm just pointing out that if you make such an extreme change it will tend to have greater ramifications than just that one instance. In this example, we've made the UK indifferent or inclined towards fascism, and indifferent to the territorial expansion of Germany. Would they not be equally indifferent to Japanese expansion towards US assets in the Pacific?

sebster wrote:Would occupation of the Balkans be a trigger for breaking the peace with the UK? That's where the crazyland position comes up again... if we've changed the UK's stance to be alright with occupation of Poland, why would the Balkans be any different?

True enough. Without direct German intervention the whole thing is a sideshow anyway. It's truer to actual history to say Britain intervenes. I believe Britain will act to limit Italian dominance in the Mediterranean (and ultimately Suez). If Italy expands its influence in the Mediterranean it will come to blows with Britain sooner or later.

I'm wondering if this newly amoral Britain might have been willing to deal with the Japanese, and simply ignore the Japanese attack on the US. Which, isn't actually that unlikely, everyone knew about the Co-Prosperity Sphere and what it meant for the French, UK and US, yet the US didn't step in to help while Japan was attacking UK colonies. Is there any reason to presume the UK would act any differently if US assets were attacked? Particularly when we consider this new, evil UK...

Historically Britain's colonies are attacked on the same day as the US fleet. Even evil UK or evil US will see the long view if one of them is attacked, or maybe they won't and Japan gets its Co-Prosperity Sphere. I still think acting together is the more likely option.

sebster wrote:It's hard to envision Germany having done better than they were in 1941, and the Japanese still didn't screw with the Russians. The navy had won the debate by that point, and the nation was now committed to expansion southwards, and even it wanted to shift back North the Japanese were piling so many troops into China to keep it pacified that another primarily land based invasion would have been an incredible stretch.

Again, non intervention in the Balkans as well as the non happening of Northern Africa, the Battle of Britain, the Blitz, the loss of most of Germany's surface fleet plus a submarine fleet literally twiddling it's thumbs for a year must surely have some beneficial effect on their attack on the Soviet union. It is illogical to deny that the Germans could have got further in Russia in 1941 if these events had not occurred. You yourself say that in this timeline the Japanese will adapt. This timeline cannot produce a stronger Soviet state (without some other change) it is reasonable to assume the Japanese could react to a weaker Soviet position.

George Spiggott wrote:True enough. Without direct German intervention the whole thing is a sideshow anyway. It's truer to actual history to say Britain intervenes. I believe Britain will act to limit Italian dominance in the Mediterranean (and ultimately Suez). If Italy expands its influence in the Mediterranean it will come to blows with Britain sooner or later.

Is a fair point. Earlier I was assuming that British neutrality/alliance required the Germans to respect Belgian neutrality in their attack on France, and I wonder if the same thing were possible with Italy and the Mediterranean? To ensure Britain stays on-side the Germans may well have told the Italians to stow their ambitions...

Or maybe not, Hitler was willing to push the French and Germans over Poland, so maybe he'd be willing to push Britain over Italian expansion. Again, this is the problem with crazyland...

Historically Britain's colonies are attacked on the same day as the US fleet. Even evil UK or evil US will see the long view if one of them is attacked, or maybe they won't and Japan gets its Co-Prosperity Sphere. I still think acting together is the more likely option.

Ah yes, of course the attack was the same day. Silly mistake there by me...

You could well be right of course, but it all depends on the circumstances of our crazyland scenario - are the UK part of the Axis, could they even work with the Japanese? Who knows, because we're in crazyland.

Again, non intervention in the Balkans as well as the non happening of Northern Africa, the Battle of Britain, the Blitz, the loss of most of Germany's surface fleet plus a submarine fleet literally twiddling it's thumbs for a year must surely have some beneficial effect on their attack on the Soviet union. It is illogical to deny that the Germans could have got further in Russia in 1941 if these events had not occurred. You yourself say that in this timeline the Japanese will adapt. This timeline cannot produce a stronger Soviet state (without some other change) it is reasonable to assume the Japanese could react to a weaker Soviet position.

But there's two things - the early stages of the war couldn't have gone any better for the Germans, whether they struck sooner or with a handful more men. What cost them was their failure to encircle the Soviets completely in the early stages. Even if they penetrated further into Moscow, then they'd just be in another meatgrinder, albeit even further from home.

The second point is that even with the troop losses in China, I just don't see how Japan could summon a force to take and hold Russian assets in the far East. Especially considering the relatively light nature of Japanese infantry in comparison to their Russian equivalents (seriously, what the Russians did to the Japanese forces in the last stages of the war was scarily effective).

You didn't comment on the issues I raised with your speculation over Japanese expansion into British colonies..

I missed those in all the postings– what were they?


You also note the USSR’s epitomy of an effective armored attack into Manchuria. I don’t think under any scenario - absent a Soviet collapse – that the Japanese actually attack the USSR. They had what they wanted in Manchuria and their defeat by Comrade Zhukhov was enough to seriously warn them off. Further, I’d posit they’d only attack if the Siberian divisions leave to fight Hitler and by then its too late. I could see the Russians giving up land in the East as well for time to fight the Fascists, then turn around and get really nasty with the Japanese (of course the Japanese would have been bagged by the USA at that point).

sebster wrote:But there's two things - the early stages of the war couldn't have gone any better for the Germans, whether they struck sooner or with a handful more men. What cost them was their failure to encircle the Soviets completely in the early stages. Even if they penetrated further into Moscow, then they'd just be in another meatgrinder, albeit even further from home.

The second point is that even with the troop losses in China, I just don't see how Japan could summon a force to take and hold Russian assets in the Far East. Especially considering the relatively light nature of Japanese infantry in comparison to their Russian equivalents (seriously, what the Russians did to the Japanese forces in the last stages of the war was scarily effective).

This seems to have boiled down to our single sticking point. I think you're doing the German's chances to do better a disservice but I'm willing to concede the possibility that they don't attack until mid 1942. The Germans are doing well in '42 in reality and I still hold out that they can do better in '41. That still leaves a window of opportunity for reality to happen in December 41 with the same predictable results, only more so, the war probably ends in say 1943 as Japan never gets as far initially and is overwhelmed faster. Meaning that while I think a Japanese attack on the Soviet Union is possible, it juist never gets chance to happen in 'crazyland'.

That just leaves the outcome of the Sovio-Fascist War of 1941-...

Anyone care to speculate on the possibility of Lend Lease to the Germans and Royal Navy blockades of Soviet ports? Nobody likes the 'Commies' and nobody wants to see Europe overwhelmed when the Germans start losing again in 1943. In 1939/1940 there was a plan to send Polish troops to Finland to fight the Soviets so there's real life precedent.

Lend Lease was US-are you inferring a British Lend Lease? I doubt that, although if we'regoing down this path, why not British divisions along with the other Fascist divisions encircled along with the Germans at Stalingrad?

Here's the other part. If Britain allies with Germany against USSR, what do they do when the Soviet juggernaut makes it to the English Channel?

Frazzled wrote:Lend Lease was US-are you inferring a British Lend Lease? I doubt that, although if we'regoing down this path, why not British divisions along with the other Fascist divisions encircled along with the Germans at Stalingrad?

I'm using it in reference to any military aid to the forces fighting the Soviets. Ground troops are always the last thing a country will send but they are an option.

Frazzled wrote:Here's the other part. If Britain allies with Germany against USSR, what do they do when the Soviet juggernaut makes it to the English Channel?

How is this not a possibility if Britain remains neutral? Are the Soviets just going to pack up and go home when they get to the Rhine? Either the Germans win or Europe becomes a Soviet Client State.

I've just taken a more aggressive foreign policy position than you. I think I win some sort of internet award.

Frazzled wrote:I missed those in all the postings– what were they?

Third last post of page 4, it's attached to posts I made in response to Emperors Faithful and George Spiggott.

You also note the USSR’s epitomy of an effective armored attack into Manchuria. I don’t think under any scenario - absent a Soviet collapse – that the Japanese actually attack the USSR. They had what they wanted in Manchuria and their defeat by Comrade Zhukhov was enough to seriously warn them off. Further, I’d posit they’d only attack if the Siberian divisions leave to fight Hitler and by then its too late. I could see the Russians giving up land in the East as well for time to fight the Fascists, then turn around and get really nasty with the Japanese (of course the Japanese would have been bagged by the USA at that point).

I agree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

George Spiggott wrote:This seems to have boiled down to our single sticking point. I think you're doing the German's chances to do better a disservice but I'm willing to concede the possibility that they don't attack until mid 1942. The Germans are doing well in '42 in reality and I still hold out that they can do better in '41. That still leaves a window of opportunity for reality to happen in December 41 with the same predictable results, only more so, the war probably ends in say 1943 as Japan never gets as far initially and is overwhelmed faster. Meaning that while I think a Japanese attack on the Soviet Union is possible, it juist never gets chance to happen in 'crazyland'.

I agree that the Germans could have performed better. Had they been more organised they could have completed an encirclement of the Russians forces in the opening stages of the blitzkrieg, and the whole thing would have almost certainly been very different.

But if we allow that possibility, we also have to allow for the possiblity of the French doing much, much better (and really, 'halfway respectable' would be much, much better). Or the possibility that the British might do a better job in Singapore...

I'd suggest that England (and thereby France) remaining neutral is more beleivable. Germany would have been just fine with that, and it's unlikely they would have sought a war later on.

sebster wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I don't see why you think that, we are still talking about Pre-WWII right?

Because I can't think of a democratic, developed country that's allied with a non-democratic country to undertake a war of expansion. Can you?

The USA and France. Twice if I recall correctly. Though that's quite irrevelant in a scenario nearly 150 years later.

That and France and the UK allying with Russia in WW1. Arugably not a war of expansion, unless you include the disupted territories between France and Germany.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:But if we allow that possibility, we also have to allow for the possiblity of the French doing much, much better (and really, 'halfway respectable' would be much, much better). Or the possibility that the British might do a better job in Singapore...

You've already said that an increase in these cases likely wouldn't have improved the catastrophic defeats of the allies by much, wheras the German campaign in Russia would certainly have benefitted from the additional forces that would not be needed in occupying France or pursuing a war in North Africa.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though, the munitions captured in France is certainly a factor that has to be kept in mind.

On a related but not necessarily exact note... have any of you read Harry Turtledove? He has a ten book epic on what would have happened if the South won the Civil War - after France and the UK recognize it when they win Gettysburg and promise to free their slaves. If you can get through the much repeated superiority of southern tobacco, you have an awesome multi generational story - basically, a second war between the states breaks out when the Confederacy annexes Sonora and Chihuahua and gains Pacific access; the South quickly wins a few battles and the North sues for peace.

From there it goes into a trilogy of the Great War, in which an embittered United States finds an ally in the German Empire, while the south is allied with the French and Brits. The war starts the way it did in our timeline, though it ends with a strong German and US victory. There are three books in the interwar period, chronically the severe economic problems in both the restitution- bankrupted south and eventually the stock market crash hitting everyone. This serves as a backdrop for the rise of the Freedom Party, under the Southern version of Hitler, who advocates that the Confederacy lost the Great War due to the socialist uprisings and sabotage among the impoverished black freemen of the south.

Following are the four books on WW2, in which the South, (with Kentucky serving as the Rhineland) and their alliance of Britain, France, and Tsarist Russia (having defeated the Reds IIRC, go to war against the US and Germany. It is a damn good series. It almost entirely concentrates on the American theatre, but it is still a good read.

George Spiggott wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Lend Lease was US-are you inferring a British Lend Lease? I doubt that, although if we'regoing down this path, why not British divisions along with the other Fascist divisions encircled along with the Germans at Stalingrad?

I'm using it in reference to any military aid to the forces fighting the Soviets. Ground troops are always the last thing a country will send but they are an option.

Frazzled wrote:Here's the other part. If Britain allies with Germany against USSR, what do they do when the Soviet juggernaut makes it to the English Channel?

How is this not a possibility if Britain remains neutral? Are the Soviets just going to pack up and go home when they get to the Rhine? Either the Germans win or Europe becomes a Soviet Client State.

I've just taken a more aggressive foreign policy position than you. I think I win some sort of internet award.

If Britain supports Germany in WWII it ends up like all the other countries that supported Germany in WWII.
Rubble.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:But if we allow that possibility, we also have to allow for the possiblity of the French doing much, much better (and really, 'halfway respectable' would be much, much better). Or the possibility that the British might do a better job in Singapore...

Cute doggie avatar!

Agreed. We have to open the easy possibility that, with no German focus on the West, the USSR is more cautious and has a better response in the opening days than what actually occurred.

Additionally it opens the possibility, if the USSR sees a Fascist Europe, what if my dear friends, it attacks first?

Frazzled wrote:Additionally it opens the possibility, if the USSR sees a Fascist Europe, what if my dear friends, it attacks first?

If Germany doesn't go to with with Britain or France, why would there be a Fascist Europe immediately after Poland?

Frazzled wrote:Cute doggie avatar!

Cheers! I figured if I was going to have my Dakka name be my dog's name, I might as well have a picture of him. Well, a picture of a Cavalier King Charles, at least, given the mood took me while I was at work and couldn't get any pictures of my own.

Agreed. We have to open the easy possibility that, with no German focus on the West, the USSR is more cautious and has a better response in the opening days than what actually occurred.

Interesting question... and I'm not sure. I wonder if, with all of Europe turning directly against the Soviets, Stalin's paranoia might have been even greater, and produced even worse purges?

Additionally it opens the possibility, if the USSR sees a Fascist Europe, what if my dear friends, it attacks first?

Good question. Could the Soviets have managed any kind of meaningful attack in 1939 or 1940, in the midst of the purges?

What if the attack had come in the 1935, instead of the purges?

well everything would have gone to plan with the US until they defeated Japan with the atom bomb and decided to use it on europe to get rid of the Nazi's until they realised it was killing the earth and everthing ends up in the Fallout universe.

Good question. Could the Soviets have managed any kind of meaningful attack in 1939 or 1940, in the midst of the purges?
***I'm proffering they wait until 1941 to get their forces more in gear. IIRC but the Wehrmacht was actually building for this invasion later than it actually occurred.

What if the attack had come in the 1935, instead of the purges?
***I don't think Germany is capable politically or militarily of launching a strike against anyone in 1935. Thats not long after Hitler comes to power, and improvement post Depression is just beginning.

Frazzled wrote:***I'm proffering they wait until 1941 to get their forces more in gear. IIRC but the Wehrmacht was actually building for this invasion later than it actually occurred.

I thought the Russians were looking at more like 1944 or 45 as their ready date?

***I don't think Germany is capable politically or militarily of launching a strike against anyone in 1935. Thats not long after Hitler comes to power, and improvement post Depression is just beginning.

No, I mean what if the Russians had attacked in 1935? Like the Chinese did in the Korean war, insted of throwing all the politically unreliable folk in camps, you give them a chance to redeem themselves by making suicidal attacks on the enemy? So instead of the purges Stalin attacks Germany in 1935...

Admittedly, most of the Russian industrial strength wasn't in place, but they weren't far from it, and Germany was much, much weaker.

sebster wrote:No, I mean what if the Russians had attacked in 1935? Like the Chinese did in the Korean war, insted of throwing all the politically unreliable folk in camps, you give them a chance to redeem themselves by making suicidal attacks on the enemy? So instead of the purges Stalin attacks Germany in 1935...

Admittedly, most of the Russian industrial strength wasn't in place, but they weren't far from it, and Germany was much, much weaker.

I wonder if that would be grounds for Britain and France to side with Germany. They had little love for Communism, as demonstrated after the Great War.

If the UK had joined Germany then in 1996 we would all have singing along to: "Erzählen Sie mir, was Sie wollen, was Sie wirklich wirklich wollen."

Avoiding that alone is reason enough to be happy they didn't side with Germany.

AT-43.CO.UK wrote:If the UK had joined Germany then in 1996 we would all have singing along to: "Erzählen Sie mir, was Sie wollen, was Sie wirklich wirklich wollen."

Avoiding that alone is reason enough to be happy they didn't side with Germany.

I don't know why you even think that. If the UK lost the war and was occupied, maybe. But an alliance is different.

However, we would all be driving damn fine cars.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:***I'm proffering they wait until 1941 to get their forces more in gear. IIRC but the Wehrmacht was actually building for this invasion later than it actually occurred.

I thought the Russians were looking at more like 1944 or 45 as their ready date?

***I don't think Germany is capable politically or militarily of launching a strike against anyone in 1935. Thats not long after Hitler comes to power, and improvement post Depression is just beginning.

No, I mean what if the Russians had attacked in 1935? Like the Chinese did in the Korean war, insted of throwing all the politically unreliable folk in camps, you give them a chance to redeem themselves by making suicidal attacks on the enemy? So instead of the purges Stalin attacks Germany in 1935...

Admittedly, most of the Russian industrial strength wasn't in place, but they weren't far from it, and Germany was much, much weaker.

Now thats an interesting question. I don't know. But weren't they best buds then?

Frazzled wrote:If Britain supports Germany in WWII it ends up like all the other countries that supported Germany in WWII. Rubble.

Like Spain? Really, in this situation how does being neutral avoid this scenario? Even being pro-Soviet opens the door for 40+ years of the threat of a Britain reduced to rubble courtesy of the cold war.

sebster wrote:I agree that the Germans could have performed better. Had they been more organised they could have completed an encirclement of the Russians forces in the opening stages of the blitzkrieg, and the whole thing would have almost certainly been very different.

But if we allow that possibility, we also have to allow for the possiblity of the French doing much, much better (and really, 'halfway respectable' would be much, much better). Or the possibility that the British might do a better job in Singapore...

Except that we haven't changed the time line for France, but if we did what additional help are we going to give them. I believe I've already covered the possibility of Britain doing better in Singapore, so much better that the Japanese dare not attack in the first place.

Frazzled wrote:Now thats an interesting question. I don't know. But weren't they best buds then?

They were best buds in 1941 as well. They were best buds right up until one of them was ready to put the knife in.

George Spiggott wrote:But if we allow that possibility, we also have to allow for the possiblity of the French doing much, much better (and really, 'halfway respectable' would be much, much better). Or the possibility that the British might do a better job in Singapore...

Except that we haven't changed the time line for France, but if we did what additional help are we going to give them. I believe I've already covered the possibility of Britain doing better in Singapore, so much better that the Japanese dare not attack in the first place.

sebster wrote:The thing is, the Germans really didn't have the capability to run a protracted campaign, that's why they gambled on driving through the Ardennes. Had the French been more competent the war would have turned out a lot differently.

So you're saying we could modify the French/German outcome because we can (I don't actually have a problem with this in any way BTW) but if we give the Germans more time and more resources vs. the Soviets (and weaken the Soviet position) we cannot change the outcome nor even elements of it? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.

George Spiggott wrote:So you're saying we could modify the French/German outcome because we can (I don't actually have a problem with this in any way BTW) but if we give the Germans more time and more resources vs. the Soviets (and weaken the Soviet position) we cannot change the outcome nor even elements of it? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.

What I'm saying, really, is that if we're willing to speculate on a Germany that performed better in the East, we need to consider how lucky they were to be in that position in the first place. It's just that I think there's a tendency for history buffs to ponder what if Germany had done this or if that had turned out differently and conclude Germany was unlucky not win, when we need to keep in mind how lucky they were to get as far as they did.

Sebster has the way of it.

sebster wrote:What I'm saying, really, is that if we're willing to speculate on a Germany that performed better in the East, we need to consider how lucky they were to be in that position in the first place. It's just that I think there's a tendency for history buffs to ponder what if Germany had done this or if that had turned out differently and conclude Germany was unlucky not win, when we need to keep in mind how lucky they were to get as far as they did.

We could if luck was such a large factor like it was in France (By 'luck' we're talking about events that could not reasonably be predicted right?). There's a lot of 'bad luck' for the Germans on the Eastern front in 1941 such as having to support the Italians in the Balkans and the unusually cold winter or the UK immediately supporting the Soviets. The Eastern front campaign wasn't decided by good luck for the Germans in 1941. Remember the hard fight the Finns gave the Soviets a year before.