Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I do remember. However I meant we could pull some forces away from Northern France for D-Day.

Later, when they realise Normandy is the actual main invasion (we give them information saying that the south invasion has been cancelled or something), the germans pull some of those southern forces north to try to push us back, at which point we hit them from behind with the southern france invasion and catch them between two fronts.

Ah got it, kind of like what the Germans thought Normandy was. vs. an expected Calais attack. That was kidnof the idea of Dragoon. We have to remember the Allies launched multiple sequential amphibious landings in Italy. Its one reason Normandy went so well-they paid a bloody price to learn the lessons.

and the raid on diepe

it was a failure but they learnt alot which was translated over for Normandy.

Also the fact one beach assult was lead to sound of a bagpiper cannot hurt. No one want to face a bunch of enraged scotsmen.

 jhe90 wrote:
and the raid on diepe

it was a failure but they learnt alot which was translated over for Normandy.

Also the fact one beach assult was lead to sound of a bagpiper cannot hurt. No one want to face a bunch of enraged scotsmen.

indeed. Enraged kilt wearing Scotsmen could only be stopped by enraged bear skin wearing Vikings, not mere Aryan Ubermensch.

 Frazzled wrote:
Ah got it, kind of like what the Germans thought Normandy was. vs. an expected Calais attack. That was kidnof the idea of Dragoon. We have to remember the Allies launched multiple sequential amphibious landings in Italy. Its one reason Normandy went so well-they paid a bloody price to learn the lessons.

Dragoon took place 2 months after Normandy. It had almost no play in the Normandy planning. Years before, in the initial planning stages, it was meant that way, but when the leadership realized they wouldn't have the logisitical capability to do both invasions simultaneously, that planning changed.

Now with Dragoon, they did many diversionary tactics, keeping the Germans guessing along the entire southern coast of France where the main thrust would be. They attacked Islands, did naval raids, even dropped dummy paratroop units, all over the southern coastline. The German forces in that army was more confused about what was going on, then in Normandy.

The tricks and feints that were carried out on the western front, and the number of them, were ridiculous. Totally genius, but ridiculous

An entire fake army to the extnent of tanks. Radio and everything.

The deception was amazing in scale.
And a good piiper in a Scottish regiment could change battles. Just by the morale boost they provide.

Stood in the open, pipew blaring under fire marching cooly with the men.

The defining event of WW2 (apart from September 3rd 1939 )

Is not Barbarossa, but the Fall of France.

If France is not conquered, then Germany doesn't attack Russia (not wanting to risk a two front war)

Japan doesn't occupy Indo-China, and thus head to a confrontation with Britain and the USA.

Italy doesn't enter the war

Britain doesn't look to Washington for aid.

The Invasion of France was a big gamble for the Germans, and very nearly failed, but if they had failed.

Then all this talk of the Eastern front would be redundant IMO.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Japan doesn't occupy Indo-China, and thus head to a confrontation with Britain and the USA.

The Second Sino-Japanese War began in 1937, and the United States took very great exception. The course for war in the Pacific is complimentary but distinct from that of Europe, and arguably Historians have been remiss in continually thinking that WWII began with the Invasion of Poland (a byproduct of the generally European focus of the war itself), rather than the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Japan doesn't occupy Indo-China, and thus head to a confrontation with Britain and the USA.

The Second Sino-Japanese War began in 1937, and the United States took very great exception. The course for war in the Pacific is complimentary but distinct from that of Europe, and arguably Historians have been remiss in continually thinking that WWII began with the Invasion of Poland (a byproduct of the generally European focus of the war itself), rather than the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War.

But it was only after the occupation of Indo-China that FDR started slapping embargoes on Japan for things like Oil.

Sino jaoaense war excepted didnt Japans expansion and belligerence in the pacific region run counter to Americas Desires anyway?

Wasn't some kind of conflict in the pacific between Japan and the US inevitable, even without Pearl? The Philippines for example?

Another aspect which needs consideration, I think, is that whilst the west may not have been required for its material by the USSR, we were definitely important for our information sources.

Without our codebreakers and the transferal of information gained from our intelligence gathering activites to the Russians (albeit sometimes due to their spy at Bletchley), they may have been less able to prepare for German attacks, such as the previously mentioned Battle of Kursk. Whether this would have tipped the war enough to make a difference, I don't know, but it should be considered.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Japan doesn't occupy Indo-China, and thus head to a confrontation with Britain and the USA.

The Second Sino-Japanese War began in 1937, and the United States took very great exception. The course for war in the Pacific is complimentary but distinct from that of Europe, and arguably Historians have been remiss in continually thinking that WWII began with the Invasion of Poland (a byproduct of the generally European focus of the war itself), rather than the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War.

But it was only after the occupation of Indo-China that FDR started slapping embargoes on Japan for things like Oil.

True without IndoChina the embargoes wouldn't have have been triggered thus starting the clock to war.

I would agree though that WWII really starts with Japan and Manchuria.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Another aspect which needs consideration, I think, is that whilst the west may not have been required for its material by the USSR, we were definitely vital for our information sources.

Without our codebreakers and the transferal of information gained from our intelligence gathering activites to the Russians (albeit sometimes due to their spy at Bletchley), they may have been less able to prepare for German attacks, such as the previously mentioned Battle of Kursk. Whether this would have tipped the war enough to make a difference, I don't know, but it should be considered.

Thats why I find these slightly revisionist arguments to be stupid. It took the US, Britain, Free French, and the USSR to beat the hell out of Germany. Could the USSR have driven Germany back out? Potentially. Did the Russians take and cause the vast majority of casualties against Germany?-you betcha. Are the T34s and IS-2s badass tanks (know one tanlks about the unsung STG and SU 100-nothing says F you like mounting a naval gun on a tank...) Could Germany have potentially beaten the USSR? -yes. Were all the allies instrumental in defeating Germany? yes. Is SPAM awesome with pineapple? OH YEA.

I can understand different scenarios etc. but the "who had the biggest " arguments are meh.

Frazz, your post has given me an idea for a new thread.

Heres a scenario.

Hitler stays East, and from 1940 ramps up plans to invade Russia in a crusade against Bolshevism.

The Phony war is as was except that, Hitler forces concentrating on Russia also means little threat to France and Britain.

Aside from stern words, the Poles are beyond help at this stage.

France can secure terms with Hitler, a non aggression pact for example.

Can Germany expect an armistice with the Brits and maybe help against the Soviets -many would remember the revolution, the Whites and the murder of the Tsars family.

Could Britain side with Germany in a fight against communism?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Frazz, your post has given me an idea for a new thread.

Hawaiian pineapple recipes? Do Mai Tais count? Oh heck yea they do.

An alternate thread would be comparing Centurions to IS-2s and JTigers, or whether one Hurricane would take out a Maus or if it would need two?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
But it was only after the occupation of Indo-China that FDR started slapping embargoes on Japan for things like Oil.

The invasion prompted the action, but the Japanese war in China had been the primary source of tension leading to it. Conflict between the US and Japan in the Pacific was not dependent on the events of the war in Europe. The rapid defeat of France offered an opportunity, but did not cause any significant shift in Japanese grand strategy. They'd already decided on a southern course of action when it became apparent a northern one was untenable. The USSR beat Japan bad at the battles of Khalkhin Gol, and the tension between the US and Japan had been high for the past twenty years. The course was set for war in the pacific before the war began in Europe.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Heres a scenario.

Hitler stays East, and from 1940 ramps up plans to invade Russia in a crusade against Bolshevism.

The Phony war is as was except that, Hitler forces concentrating on Russia also means little threat to France and Britain.

Aside from stern words, the Poles are beyond help at this stage.

France can secure terms with Hitler, a non aggression pact for example.

Can Germany expect an armistice with the Brits and maybe help against the Soviets -many would remember the revolution, the Whites and the murder of the Tsars family.

Could Britain side with Germany in a fight against communism?

Alternatively, what if Poland grants Germany corridor access to Prussia and Danzig?
Even more interestingly, what if Poland gets in bed with Germany like Romania?

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Sino jaoaense war excepted didnt Japans expansion and belligerence in the pacific region run counter to Americas Desires anyway?

Wasn't some kind of conflict in the pacific between Japan and the US inevitable, even without Pearl? The Philippines for example?

Yes to the first question. To the second, the only thing that staved off war between the Empire of Japan and the United States of America in the 1930s was Japan's pursuit of a Northern Expansion strategy. Japan and Russia were regional rivals since the turn of the century, and the invasion of Manchuria was in part to gain a regional advantage to strengthen Japan and to deny it to Russia/USSR. However the crushing defeat given Japan by the USSR in 1939 at the Battles of Khalkhin Gol forced a change in Japanese Grand Strategy. Their army was incapable of defeating the Red Army, and they realized this very quickly. The focus shifted south, towards Indo-China and the islands of the South Pacific. This strategy had been avoided because it meant an unavoidable war with America, but when the North cut off, Japan put their money on a climatic naval conflict with the US that could force a settlement before a prolonged war began. Thus Pearl Harbor was planned to cripple the Pacific Fleet and set the stage for Japan to win a large sea battle. Fortunately for us, the war didn't remotely go as Japan planned.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Heres a scenario.

Hitler stays East, and from 1940 ramps up plans to invade Russia in a crusade against Bolshevism.

The Phony war is as was except that, Hitler forces concentrating on Russia also means little threat to France and Britain.

Aside from stern words, the Poles are beyond help at this stage.

France can secure terms with Hitler, a non aggression pact for example.

Can Germany expect an armistice with the Brits and maybe help against the Soviets -many would remember the revolution, the Whites and the murder of the Tsars family.

Could Britain side with Germany in a fight against communism?

Alternatively, what if Poland grants Germany corridor access to Prussia and Danzig?
Even more interestingly, what if Poland gets in bed with Germany like Romania?

Hitlers gonna Hitler you know.

Poland had to be burnt to cinders. So long as ole one ball is in power I don't think there is any alternate history where Poland and Germany buddy up.

Yeah I think Frazz's scenario ignores the strength of feeling in Poland at the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I like the scenario that Churchill pushed for, which was the landing of the Anvil (nee Dragoon) force in the Balkans rather than France once it was realised it would be delayed/less necessary.

How much would this have affected the End/Post War dispositions and would this have ignited an East vs West war there and then.

Regarding Russia sweeping all before it. 1941 was a pivotal year for Stalin and the conflict

He was probably certain he was due a bullet in the back of the skull and an un-marked grave but his deputies decided to bend their knees and beg him to lead them. (very un-soviet).

A strengthened Stalin, more bullet proof even by the standards of a dictator could bend his people to stopping the German advance and then to fighting back.

 LordofHats wrote:
Thus Pearl Harbor was planned to cripple the Pacific Fleet and set the stage for Japan to win a large sea battle. Fortunately for us, the war didn't remotely go as Japan planned.

Japan's war plans always baffled me. Didn't they already know the US was a manufacturing colossus with vast resources? They must have known that the US could replace it's material losses very quickly. I don't see how the War in the Pacific could have gone any differently, even if Pearl Harbour had been successful (sank carriers too), it only would have dragged out the end result a few more years.

 notprop wrote:
Yeah I think Frazz's scenario ignores the strength of feeling in Poland at the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I like the scenario that Churchill pushed for, which was the landing of the Anvil (nee Dragoon) force in the Balkans rather than France once it was realised it would be delayed/less necessary.

How much would this have affected the End/Post War dispositions and would this have ignited an East vs West war there and then.

What was the felling in Poland? Question -not criticism.

Alternatively what if Hitler begins buddying up to Poland early on (like in early 1930s)?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Thus Pearl Harbor was planned to cripple the Pacific Fleet and set the stage for Japan to win a large sea battle. Fortunately for us, the war didn't remotely go as Japan planned.

Japan's war plans always baffled me. Didn't they already know the US was a manufacturing colossus with vast resources? They must have known that the US could replace it's material losses very quickly. I don't see how the War in the Pacific could have gone any differently, even if Pearl Harbour had been successful (sank carriers too), it only would have dragged out the end result a few more years.

Their naval history was one of a major victory against a major foe that drove them to the table.
As may have been noted, the navy was very against it. The army, like good politicians, volunteered someone else for the war.
Considering the army was sucking wind in China, one might have thought they would have lost power vs. the navy. Thats an interesting discussion in itself.

 Frazzled wrote:


Alternatively what if Hitler begins buddying up to Poland early on (like in early 1930s)?

'Hey, Polish those communists sure hate ubermencsch like us'
'Do they?'
'yeah, hey, here's an idea, lets invade, we'll divvy up the spoils'
'Okay....'
.......
'Hey, German, why are you massing on our border'
'Subhuman says what'
BLAM!

Isn't this whole thread basically moot? The allies had been taxing the Germans the whole war while Russia built up it's industry. Plus - if not for truly idiotic decisions in the Russian campaign by Hilter Moscow would have Fallen within the first 3 months of the campaign. By all means that is what should have happend - but alas - Hitler was a Lunatic after all.

 Frazzled wrote:

 notprop wrote:
Yeah I think Frazz's scenario ignores the strength of feeling in Poland at the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I like the scenario that Churchill pushed for, which was the landing of the Anvil (nee Dragoon) force in the Balkans rather than France once it was realised it would be delayed/less necessary.

How much would this have affected the End/Post War dispositions and would this have ignited an East vs West war there and then.

What was the felling in Poland? Question -not criticism.

Alternatively what if Hitler begins buddying up to Poland early on (like in early 1930s)?

They has this weird sort of leftist democratic authoritarian regime thing going on (if that makes sense) created out out the ashes of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Discrimination against mnotities was a big thing there including against ethinic Germans. It was a pretty popular set up (unless you were a minority I guess) that had redistributed lands (as I say leftist) but done so with out much/any blood letting etc and without removing the wealthy so reasonable stable. People were comparitively well off and happy that there was a Polish state. They were well aware of the Nazi and rightly wary of both Gernam and Soviet Nationalism.

They had Alliances and assurances with Britain amoungst other for defence and also had a fair sized standing army that they believed were up to the job - though it later proved had fallen behind in terms of equipment and we all now know how books the assurances of Briatin and France turned out to be.

So all in all I dont think the Poles would have had any truck with Hitler. The were making a decent fist of battling the Germans albeit on the back foot until to Soviets attacked their rear and engaged their reserves.

 feeder wrote:
Japan's war plans always baffled me. Didn't they already know the US was a manufacturing colossus with vast resources? They must have known that the US could replace it's material losses very quickly. I don't see how the War in the Pacific could have gone any differently, even if Pearl Harbour had been successful (sank carriers too), it only would have dragged out the end result a few more years.

The plan was "the US has a lot of support for isolationist policies, if we cripple their navy and stop the immediate threat we can force them to agree to a peace treaty that gives us the territory we want without US interference". Japan (or at least some of Japanese leadership) knew that a long war would be bad, the idea was that it would be a short war where US production advantages don't matter. Unfortunately for Japan they completely misjudged US reactions to the attack on Pearl Harbor and got stuck with the long war they couldn't win.

 Frazzled wrote:
Their naval history was one of a major victory against a major foe that drove them to the table.

This. The Battle of Tsushima was a defining moment for the Imperial Japanese Navy, and shaped much of their future outlook.

As may have been noted, the navy was very against it. The army, like good politicians, volunteered someone else for the war.

Depends. Some in the Army still favored the Northern Strategy, while the Imperial Navy always favored the Southern Strategy. The Navy itself was divided over whether or not the United States could be defeated. They all recognized the Imperial Navy could not endure a long war, but the Imperial Navy understood Democracy's core weakness in war time; while the leaders of a democracy may want to go on, if the people don't they will cave. The hope was that a decisive battle would turn the public against war and force the government to the negotiating table, to which Japan would offer what they considered generous terms highly favorable to the US.

The Imperial military machine sorely underestimated how galvanizing a direct (and undeclared) attack on the United States would be. Further they continually failed to force a decisive battle that they desired. Midway and Coral Sea were attempts at doing so, but both times the Imperial Navy failed. Further, the Navy at the time still believed in the Battleship heavily, realizing far too late in the war that Carriers were the new kings of the sea, and the US sank most of Japan's by the end of 1943 while churning out floating airfields at an alarming rate.

And the Battle of Tsushima also spelt the downfall of the Japanese in WW2, it taught them a smaller force could take down a larger one with speed.

Which only goes so far once the USA starts spewing capital ships over the Pacific.