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.

This is kinda carrying on from the OT thread of intolerance that went OT.

What are your thoughts on WWII?

1) Nagasaki and Hiroshima Bombings.
2) Soviet Involvement
3) US Involvement.
Anything else I missed?
Go for it.

Oh, BTW the poll option of 'Yes, if it weren't for us dragging your asses outta the fire you'd be toast' is the exact opposite of 'Yes, the outcome was never in question'.

1) wasnt necessary
2) Stalin vs Hitler was obvious. The russians had to sacrifice their own until their allies deemed it already won and showed up.
3) US production was winning the war in some way.

Where is "Yes, but if Hitler hadn't decided to fight on two fronts he would have won"? Seriously, if he'd waited till he had the western half of Europe, and the parts of Africa he wanted under control, The Soviets wouldn't have been as big of a hassle. Of course if he was that smart he could have been smart enough to ignore Russia altogether.

I think that's the top one.

Germany and ... the other guy lost before they started.

Beyond the fact that major disruption could have occurred on a global scale, the U.S. had not part besides speeding up the process beyond the fact that it was ready to at any time. Sure this and that and the other thing at the place, but no... quite honestly the war would have ended with or without the U.S. simply due to the lack of support for such a ridiculous attack on the global economy on the whole.

1) The bomb is an impossibly hard question. Given the context and the imperfect knowledge of the time, I'm reluctant to judge Truman.
2) Soviet involvement is an odd consideration. They were invaded, and many of the key battles of the war occurred in their territory. Are you asking what would have happened if they hadn't been invaded? Seems unlikely given that's basically what Hitler was all about. In any case, the US would have stomped the Japanese that much sooner, and the Third Reich would have stuffed about before sooner or later collapsing under its own stupidity and immorality (as tends to happen with fascist governments). It would have sucked for the Jews (although the extremes of the final solution might not have occurred without the failure on the Eastern front), but would have been much nicer for the peoples of Russia.
3) The Germans would have been defeated by the Russians. It's likely the Russians would then have kept rolling west, at which point you'd see Churchill appealing to Truman to turn on the Russians. Is it possible that the US and British might have allied with the remaining Germans once the spectre of communism threatened to roll past Berlin? Possibly, I'm not really certain, but I do remember Churchill pressing Truman to sign a peace deal with the Germans to turn on the true enemy in Stalin.

I think the outcome wouldve been the same, even though with difficulty. And I think Lordhat has a point. The whole deal couldve turned out to be even worse if Hitler wouldnt have gone barvy and wanted too much too soon.

1. Nuke bombings: Probably not necessary to defeat Japan, but dropping BOTH bombs sent a strong and essential message to the Soviets that they were in no position to try anything after the dust settled with Germany.

2/3. Not really sure what you are asking here.

I'm going to assume by US involvement that you mean "active participation in offensive military operations" rather than economic aid. I'm a firm believer that the Soviet Union did all the heavy lifting in the war and everything else was a sideshow. Possibly big sideshows, but still....

80% of the Wehrmacht's casualties were suffered on the Eastern Front. Almost all of the major battles were resolved before the US was significantly leveraging its ground forces and siphoning off German units as a consequence. Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk were all over by late summer 1943, when the US was still piddling around in Italy.

By the time Germany *was* splitting its attention it was too late anyway. Everyone plays up the importance of the D-Day landings like it was the "death blow" that sealed Germany's fate. Oooo, look, ~60,000 casualties trapped in the Falaise Pocket! Meanwhile, the RKKA was conducting Operation Bagration, annihilating Army Group Center, destroying ~20 divisions and inflicting 500,000+ casualties.

As for Japan....just read up on Operation August Storm.

Oh, and Hitler DID run Germany into the ground, to an extent, because he failed to intelligently organize its industry and weapons R&D.

I don't think it's fair to say the outcome was obvious. Parhaps from mid 43 onwards Germany had wasted all it's oportunities but they came scarily close to winning the war on the eastern front. As much as we in the west love to big up our contributions to the war the simple fact of the matter is that the war was won/lost in Russia.

Arguably if Hitler had left the running of the eastern campaign up to his generals as opposed to constantly interfearing himself Russia would have been knocked out of war by 1943.

There is also a school of though that states that it would have been better to open the 2nd front on the west in 1943 as opposed to waiting till 1944 when the German defenses in france where arguably stronger. But with Russia out of the war I don't think any amount of effort by the western allies would have been sufficant. Meaning we would have either made peace or the war would have become a super weapons race. Quite frankly that doesnt bear thinking about!

Yeah, i think that if WWII DIDN'T reach a clear conclusion before nukes came into play then we wouldn't NEED a WWIII.

Flachzange wrote:I think the outcome wouldve been the same, even though with difficulty. And I think Lordhat has a point. The whole deal couldve turned out to be even worse if Hitler wouldnt have gone barvy and wanted too much too soon.

I'm not really sure what 'wanted too much too soon' means. The Russian steppes was what he always wanted, Lebensraum and all that. War with the British wasn't intended, but once they'd been beaten back to their island they weren't posing much of a threat. The conflict in Africa was very small scale.

It was always about invading Russia, and there wasn't really a better time for it (the Russian military at the time was a complete shambles). But no-one accounted for the ability of Russia to maintain military production.

1. It depends. No they weren't needed to win the war, but if they weren't used the cost in human life would've been much, much higher. US casualty projections for a proposed invasion of Japan were a million at the very least.

2. Soviet involvement? They were invaded and fought back in a war that was so titanic and atrocious that there isn't a question about it. However, Stalin urged at several points that the Allies had to up their bombing campaigns and hurry with their own invasions because the German army was really putting a hard pressure on his troops.

3. Lend Lease. Thank you very much. That's not sarcasm. Without that little bit the UK would've been lost long ago. Roosevelt was a great president and he knew that the US would be involved in the war sooner or later. The only things I disapprove of are the attitude that the US won the war on its own, that France surrendered without a shot and that they liberated the Netherlands. Canadians did for the most part.

Well, I think that Russia was much more prepared for an invasion in WWII than they had been 30 years ago in WWI. (Although Stalin REALLY didn't see the attack coming.)

Noble713 wrote:Oh, and Hitler DID run Germany into the ground, to an extent, because he failed to intelligently organize its industry and weapons R&D.

Yeah, the poor focus in Nazi weapon design is a big 'if' that could have changed the war (maybe that and the US keeping out combined could have changed things). The R&D program to build a super bomber to strike New York was only surrendered when Russians over ran the lab. I mean, there's Russians advancing through Germany and you're assigning your best and brightest to design a bomber that can fly to New York...

1) Nagasaki and Hiroshima Bombings: Was it necessary? I would say yes. The Japanese government WAS NOT going to surrender. the Japanese food crisis was killing more people per day than the bombings did (countrywide). almost entirely civillians, too. According to one of my history teachers, the surrender broadcast to their citizens was something along the lines of "A situation has occurred that is not in our favour. we are therefore surrendering"
Given that japanese troops very rarely surrendered, I would say that the 1 million casualties projected to be suffered by US troops and the 2-3 million + projected to happen to the japanese troops is not outlandish. quite frankly, I agree with Douglas MacArthur.
2) Soviet Involvement - The soviets in the end won the war more than anybody else. They paid more for it and got more with it. That's not to say that without britain they would have won on their own (I'm not completely convinced, although many people and articles claim this... also, this would make for an interesting alternate history...) but in the end, they forced the german surrender.
3) US Involvement. - Well, as a direct result of the US congress, Isolationism lasted for several years, and cost the lives of many millions of Europeans. Even before the war. That, and the fact that they didn't participate with the league of nations, means that they basically let the war happen.

Could the war have been won without uncle sam? Probably, actually. Canada was pretty much just as good as it was in the first world war; we sent tons and TONS of stuff over to britain. without canada, there is no doubt that Great Britain would have fallen. (brits, debate that as much as you like, I'd actually like to debate it)
but with the commonwealth nations at her side, Britain could have lasted long enough to wittle down germany; the battle of britain was done before US involvement, and lend-lease would have still continued. (realistically, the states have never backed down from making a buck, from a historical point of view)

The actual invasion of Germany probably would have been much different, and possibly would have started from the north sea, but I'm not too familiar with the state of the German navy in that region post-norway.

Did hitler run Germany into the ground? -- YES. A few of his biggest mistakes include: Declaring war on the US when he didn't have to (the treaty with japan did NOT obligate him to do so; he did anyway... U boats wanted to shoot back.)

Retaliating against civillians and not the War machine: If germany had not blitzed london, and instead attacked the industries, a figure from a history prof states that the british would have lost the capability to defend their airspace within 3 days at the worst of the battle of britain.

Commanding his armies himself, when he himself was a terrible military strategist. his indecision in where to go in Russia was a very bad decision; he should have gone for Moscow, not the Ukraine and other "lebensraum" areas. Once you capture the capital, the war is over (well, sorta, anyway...)

Non-capitalization on jet technology. Germany had this stuff in 1941-42, 2 years ahead of anyone else. but because of hitler's meddling, they were never able to properly use it, because it was delayed until it could be applied to bomber aircraft.

and I don't feel like going on anymore. good night.

I wonder what would have happened if Japan had successfully pushed all the way south to Australia? As far as I know, we didn't have many heavy defences at home, and most of our troops were in southeast Asia and Europe at the time. Thankfully we never had to worry about it, thanks to the men at Kokoda.

@Captain COmmunissim: Canada was a colony of Britain. It was part of the British Empire. If you say britain would have lost the war without canada, that's like saying Mohammed Ali would have lost the match without his right arm.

@Cheese Elemental: Actually, even if Japan had taken Kokoda, they were FAR too stretched to attempt a full-scale ivasion of Australia.

Canada was an interesting case, seeing as they had an all volunteer army instead of conscription.

Germany-Russia beat them. Interesting scenarios if the US and Britain weren't involved-extending the timeline and allowing gemrany to get nukes and mass production jet aircraft, but thats the same sort of whatif like what if German forces had just pincered around Stalingrad, or started Kursk a month earlier. A cooler whatif-what if the French had attacked Germany first?

Japan-USA beat them. The Imperial fleet is currently a series of beautful fish condoes thanks to farm boys from Idaho and yankees from Michigan.

If France had invaded in 1939 Germany would likely have held, but the Axis surge would have been in doubt.

double post

The overall dedication to the war from the USA side was nothing compared to the british and the canadians. Australia helped, to an extent - we didn't really have the best resources.

and when US of A did take action after pearl harbor the retrieving of islands of which the japanese held, was recaptured but with a horrible cost, those japanese had great loyalty to their country and the americans under estimated the strength and determination of the japanese and payed that in many lives.

The Americans did help but they could of arrived a lot earlier.

The British suffered a lot, and took the fight back to the germans, i admire there efforts and what they did.

The Australian's did a lot in africa but i can't really say much since i would be biased (see flag)

but RIP all those who died to defend in their beliefs and what they stood in. RIP the unknown soldier, too many deaths.

Gutteridge wrote:

but RIP all those who died to defend in their beliefs and what they stood in. RIP the unknown soldier, too many deaths.

The Lord bless those who died protected us and the world from evil men.

Mind you, the US people were not ready for a war, nor were they looking for one, which is something I can understand. If Pearl Harbour and Guadalcanal didn't happen then the US would've kept to the Lend Lease policy a whole lot longer.

As for France attacking first: it has often been said that if France attacked along with the BEF instead of doing the Sitz-krieg that they could have made quite some progress into Germany, mostly because ze Germans were busy in the East. Remember, most of the early German campaigns relied a lot on bluff, luck and risky gambits that paid off against all odds.

1) Necessary and lesser of the evils involved. The Japanese leaders and mentality were the toughest SOB's around (Iwo Jima, Kamikaze, bayonet charges, etc); they raped and pillaged their neighbors "before" and throughout the war and frequently used chemical and even biological weapons IIRC. When the USA was on the receiving end of a surprise attack in the month of Christmas no less; we were plenty pissed. As the years went on and the Americans saw what kind of a tough and crazy opponent they were dealing with - the option of a-bombing Japan into submission was the less deadly and destructive way to end it. The Japanese simply would not give up and it took not one but two nuclear strikes and the Soviets invading for them to finally come into the realm of reality. They were kings of population and mind control and to this day their textbooks get a ton of controversy from their Asian neighbors since they downplay and deny much of the war crimes they committed during the war; that should give you a little hint of what kind of nationality America was dealing with. If you think racism and such was bad in the segregated United States then you should look into Asian countries especially Japan.

Worth mentioning that allied firebombing did more total damage than the TWO nuclear strikes and that a mainland invasion would've been necessary had we not nuked them and the Soviets invaded; such casualty rates would rank in the millions and that was not going to happen since the world was long tired of war (think about it, FDR dead, thousands of Americans dead, years of hellish conflict, etc) and we had less evil alternatives than wiping out an entire country.

2) Soviet involvement was absolutely pivotal however if Hitler didn't invade or if America wasn't involved; it'd put the Soviet Union at a prime bargaining position in order to take over more of the world as they did at the end of WW2. Germany would've likely been in much more of their control along with Japan but this is assuming that something else would've sparked the Soviets.

3) American involvement was pivotal as well; the technology, industry, manpower, etc that America added in the war effort would've been sorely missed and in the game of "what-ifs", the lack of American involvement could've been the breaking point for the free world in Europe and especially Asia since the Japanese had no real military resistance. Helps a ton to have an ally whose huge country and infrastructure wasn't being bombed on a daily basis. Great Britain would've been especially screwed if they lacked supplies coming from the Atlantic.


RIP to all those who sacrificed in this most hellish of periods mankind has ever faced.

I think that the European theater in WWII could have been won without direct US military intervention. I don't think it could have been won without the American manufacturing sector and the lend-lease act.

I think that the US military involvement vs. Japan was needed, as the distances involved for the other powers would have probably seen the Japanese seek a peace that allowed them to keep their gains in Asia.

I don't really get to what end this argument actually serves. Whether the war would have been won without the US or not what ounce of difference to anything does it make besides giving you some national one-upmanship? I mean not that we don't get a bit of fun out of that anyway on these forums, but it's hardly the subject for it. Especially at the moment when a current war's death toll has risen to around two coalition deaths per day.

I think there are more interesting questions out there.

*what if Japan had not joined the axis powers?
*what if Operation Valkyrie had succeeded?
*what if Japan had not surrendered or the coup had been successful.
*what if FDR had been in better health and survived post war?
*what if the resources for market Garden had been given to Patton instead?
*what if the Rooskies had never invaded Finland?
*what if Germans had managed to occupy Moscow, or at least pincer it?
*what if Japan had made it into India?

Lets get weird:
*What if Brazil and Argentina entered the war, and on either side?
*What if US forces realized the flight of B-17s coming in, was in fact the Japanese strike force, and had time to send out a warning?
*What if the US had not imposed a trade embargo due to depredations in China?
*What if the US had developed the Patton tank predecessor (Pershing?) into production in mid 44?

My favourite 'what if' involves letting the Czechs fight instead of forcing them to cede land to the Nazi. With Germany nowhere near as prepared for war as they are a year later, the French army and the Royal navy on their backs and a neutral (or even potentially belligerent) Italy to the south makes for a very short war indeed.

WWII - 1938-1939: The world thanks Czechoslovakia for ending the Nazi menace.

The Sino-Japanese war is likely to end much sooner too given that both Colonial powers (Britain & France) have nothing to distract them when the US trade embargo becomes untenabel for the Japanese.

Ooh, you're good.

Mind you, it was the league of nations that put up the trade embargoes.