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.

Maybe so-I'm not up on my League of Nations stuff-but thats not relevant. What was relevant was that it was the US that did an oil and other materials embargo.

The war itself could have been prevented if the Allied forces achualy stoped the Germans from re-arming.

Here's another question: (good point Brook)
*What if Japan had not gone nutso invading Singapore, Phillipines et al, but instead had traded for natural resources-aka like they do now?

As mitch benn said in Friday Night comedy, cricket could have averted the WHOLE thing ^_^

Oh yea, sorry for the double post (Accident) But a fortune teller told Hitler not to invade Britain didn't she? And if he had we would have been stuffed or is that an urban myth?

Given the content of this post I thought this might be worth a read: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1209041/Operation-unthinkable-How-Churchill-wanted-recruit-defeated-Nazi-troops-drive-Russia-Eastern-Europe.html

...Thoughts on Frazz's questions.

*what if Japan had not joined the axis powers?
Bad news for Japan, Good news for Hitler and Mussolini.

*what if Operation Valkyrie had succeeded?
The war would almost certainly have lasted longer had the plan succeeded in full. The western allies would not have accepted partial surrender and with the Bohemian Corporal replaced by Rommel both eastern and western fronts have a much harder fight on their hands.

*what if Japan had not surrendered or the coup had been successful.
Japan would now be called China bay (famous for its glow in the dark fish).

*what if FDR had been in better health and survived post war?
US personality politics aren't my strong point.

*what if the resources for market Garden had been given to Patton instead?
What if Market Garden gets the recourses for Market Garden? Patton vs. some real opposition, who can say? Bad news for Patton?

*what if the Rooskies had never invaded Finland?
Finland may take advantage of the conflicts to the south anyway. What if Finland attacked the Russian ports is a better question.

*what if Germans had managed to occupy Moscow, or at least pincer it?
Then they would have won in the east. Moscow was third on Hitler’s list priorities after the caucuses and Leningrad.

*what if Japan had made it into India?
They would have defied all military theory (and probably a few laws of physics) Japans advance halted when they ran out of roads.

Lets get weird:
*What if Brazil and Argentina entered the war, and on either side?
(Axis) Torch would not have happened, Brazil and Argentina would lose. Other South American countries would join in (directly) one way or the other. It would get messy quickly. (Allied) The war would be a little quicker, especially in the Pacific (where I assume they would place the bulk of their forces).

*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?
As they’ve already ignored the submarines I suspect not much changes except the Japanese casualty figures (up).

*What if the US had not imposed a trade embargo due to depredations in China?
Japan would probably now own China, assuming that they didn't start arguing with the Russians (again) at some point.

*What if the US had developed the Patton tank predecessor (Pershing?) into production in mid 44?
They would have kept them on mainland Britain as they did in real life. How is this a what if?

Cheese Elemental wrote: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.

Japanese supply lines were stretched beyond sustainable capacity in reaching PNG. They were also about their manifest destiny of 'uniting' the Asian people. They weren't capable of invading Australia.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote: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.

It isn't necessarily one upmanship. There's probably a reasonable correlation between US posters saying the US was essential, and non-US posters saying they weren't, but it isn't 1:1. I just think it's an interesting way to improve understanding of the world as it was back then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote: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.

Total value of supplies given to the Russians was about $11 billion. It was mostly trucks and locomotives. It helped out, especially the trucks, but it wasn't decisive.

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.

Yeah, this is very likely. I wonder how long the Chinese debacle would have carried on before the Japanese got sick of the situation. If China was conceded, was the rest of their newly won empire sustainable. I honestly don't know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord-Loss wrote:The war itself could have been prevented if the Allied forces achualy stoped the Germans from re-arming.

Yeah, but that theory ends up with no fighting or some skirmishes at best? What's the fun in that?

*what if FDR had been in better health and survived post war?
US personality politics aren't my strong point.
---Sorry more along the lines of Cold War politics. There are arguments made that if stronger, he might not have ceded E Europe so easily to the Russians.

*what if the resources for market Garden had been given to Patton instead?
What if Market Garden gets the recourses for Market Garden? Patton vs. some real opposition, who can say? Bad news for Patton?
---To be clear what if the GAS had been given to Pattons armies vs. Market Garden. The argument is that patton could have made it to the Rhine, in force, much more quickly.

*what if the Rooskies had never invaded Finland?
Finland may take advantage of the conflicts to the south anyway. What if Finland attacked the Russian ports is a better question
---Without invaded Finland Russia would not have realized how poor their forces were and at least started to upgrade (and stop the military purges as well).

Errr guys... Brazil did fight in WW2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Expeditionary_Force_(FEB)

M.

Miguelsan wrote:Errr guys... Brazil did fight in WW2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Expeditionary_Force_(FEB)M.

Huh, I didn't know that. Cheers for the link.

Wait, I don't see anything in the link. Help!

1. I have yet to see a good alternative, just slightly different tactics they could have tried with the bombings. Invasion would have killed millions. Starvation and disease would have killed more than the bombs during a long siege. People in countries occupied by Japan would continue to be killed, and a large number of Japanese would have been killed by the USSR if they kept going. Even after the bombs they were hesitant to surrender.

2. They killed Germany. America and the UK would have been hard pressed to do it without their help, although Germany would have had a hard time taking Britain too. It probably would have ended in a stalemate, with the Third Reich later collapsing with the end of the Hitler's national fervor. Also, while the USSR didn't do that much to Japan, it was nice to have the extra weight near the end of the war.

3. We stopped Japan. And helped out the UK quite a bit. Without us the UK may have been invaded, although I don't think they would have actually been conquered. I think the lack of progress on that front would have brought Hitler back to Russia regardless. More important was our having stopped Japan from killing more people. Europe was prepared to let their colonies go in wake of the war in Europe, the Soviets didn't really care about Japan. America was able to both stop a fanatical country from killing off more people than it already had while simultaneously stopping that country from losing huge amount of civilian lives, and even managed to help get that country up and running as an economic world power again. Not bad. Also, stopping the Soviet advance in Europe was big.

For alternate history, how about: Benito Mussolini is a TACTICAL GENIUS HURR?

What if - everyone learns something about WW2 that they didn't know before? I like that one.

Frazzled wrote:Here's another question: (good point Brook)
*What if Japan had not gone nutso invading Singapore, Phillipines et al, but instead had traded for natural resources-aka like they do now?

Japan was unable to trade due to the embargo by the US in support of China and that is why they started the war.

The book Masters And Commanders is a right riveting read concerning the formation of western allied strategy in WW2.

Everyone that knows anything knows, that Axis and Allies shows us that the secret to the axis winning is for Japan to put pressure on Russia through Siberia. If only the Japanese could have seen into the future to see the wisdom of Axis and Allies.

GG

generalgrog wrote:Everyone that knows anything knows, that Axis and Allies shows us that the secret to the axis winning is for Japan to put pressure on Russia through Siberia. If only the Japanese could have seen into the future to see the wisdom of Axis and Allies.

GG

nah I thought the secret was to go first-but then again I only played the first edition

In 'real life' the Japanese had a throwdown with the Russians in 1939 and were soundly spanked by Zhukov.

They should have used more Katanas. Those things can easily cut through Russian tanks, I saw it on the internet.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
1) Nagasaki and Hiroshima Bombings.

Necessary if you believe that the unconditional surrender of Japan was requisite for victory. From a geopolitical perspective it wasn't. From the standpoint of national emotion (especially in the US, which loves its moral absolutes) it probably was.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
2) Soviet Involvement

So basically "What if Hitler never invaded the USSR?" Well, Hitler was going to invade the USSR as they were a key component of his overall plan, which he felt could only be accomplished within his lifetime (and he was probably right). A better question would be "What if Hitler had waited to invade the USSR?" Stalin was perfectly happy to continue their conflict in the political sphere. He may have even willingly contributed to the German war effort; becoming a kind of counterpart to the US. A scenario which leads to an interesting incarnation of the Cold War following Hitler's death.

Frazzled wrote:
I think there are more interesting questions out there.

Definitely.

Frazzled wrote:
*what if Japan had not joined the axis powers?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Japan never really did anything as the direct result of the Tripartite Pact, and the Anti-Comintern Agreement was rendered void by Germany's invasion of the USSR. In the event that they hadn't signed to the Tripartite Pact I'm fairly certain the war would have played out in much the same way as it had before.

Frazzled wrote:
*what if Operation Valkyrie had succeeded?

There are two parts to this, I think.

1) What if Valkyrie succeeded in assassinating Hitler, but not in realizing the larger coup?
2) What if Valkyrie succeeded in full?

1) I'm fairly certain that killing Hitler at this point would have been essentially useless. In fact, it may have been worse for the Allies as Hitler would no longer be able to interfere in the strategic decision making process; allowing the German military to stall the Western advance.
2) Negotiations would have been opened. Though the territorial disputes that would inevitably arise between the conquering powers may have forced military action to continue unabated.

Frazzled wrote:
*what if Japan had not surrendered or the coup had been successful.

The US would have dropped the third bomb on Tokyo, and continued bombing (nuclear and otherwise, in concert with a full blockade) until either Japan was militarily insignificant or the Japanese surrendered.

Frazzled wrote:
*what if FDR had been in better health and survived post war?

Not much. Truman pretty much carried out Roosevelt's plans on a verbatim basis. Incidentally, Truman was even more idealistic than Roosevelt, who largely felt a kind of misplaced camaraderie with Stalin. The only way Eastern Europe wouldn't have ended up as a Soviet holding was through additional military force.

Frazzled wrote:
*what if the Rooskies had never invaded Finland?

Hitler doesn't invade the USSR as early, but the Red Army is weaker as a whole because its flaws are not exposed until later.

Frazzled wrote:
*what if Germans had managed to occupy Moscow, or at least pincer it?

War is longer, more casualties. Probably still ends the same way.

Frazzled wrote:
*what if Japan had made it into India?

The Soviets get to grind through most of Europe as D-Day is either never attempted, fails due to insufficient resources, or comes later in the conflict. Of course, that all assumes a Japanese interest in India, an Indian need for military aid, and a considerably less-inept Japanese army.

Frazzled wrote:
*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?

Fewer casualties, same basic results.

Frazzled wrote:
*What if the US had not imposed a trade embargo due to depredations in China?

Far less likely that the US directly involves itself in the war. And, even in the event that it did, any action would have been greatly delayed.

An interesting aside, what happens to the US if it doesn't go to war? What happens to the USSR?

Frazzled wrote:
*What if the US had developed the Patton tank predecessor (Pershing?) into production in mid 44?

Do you mean deployed in mid-44, or produced in mid-44?

Frazzled wrote:*what if the resources for market Garden had been given to Patton instead?
What if Market Garden gets the resources for Market Garden? Patton vs. some real opposition, who can say? Bad news for Patton?
---To be clear what if the GAS had been given to Pattons armies vs. Market Garden. The argument is that patton could have made it to the Rhine, in force, much more quickly.

He could have, or he could have come a cropper outrunning his own supply chain (his only real resource) A frontal tank assault would have been slower than the air dropped attack against an expectant enemy giving the refitting reserves (such as 9th and 10th SS Panzer in Arnhem) more time to mobilise. He wouldn't have had his resources pulled out from under him half way through (as with Market Garden) but that wouldn't have been a problem as there would have been no way to get the resources to him in the first place.

Frazzled wrote:*what if the Rooskies had never invaded Finland?
Finland may take advantage of the conflicts to the south anyway. What if Finland attacked the Russian ports is a better question
---Without invaded Finland Russia would not have realized how poor their forces were and at least started to upgrade (and stop the military purges as well).

They also have Poland to help get them up speed but if we're going to call Finland the defining point (and why not) then things go even worse for the Soviets in 1941 (if at all possible), this may help the Nazi's or may cause them to be even more blasé and make even more mistakes than they did.

There's no reason to assume Soviet armour designs are affected (too severely) as making better tanks was not one of the vital lessons learned from the Winter War (or WWII ). The soviets didn't really learn to stop treating their officers like gak until '43.

Kursk was the big turning point in Soviet tactics, where Zhukov had to tell Stalin that the Russians would be on defence and only strike back once the Germans had exhausted their selves on the prepared defences. That and the whole stockpiling of massed batteries of artillery was put into use properly from then on in.

What if aliens had landed and stole all our Hershey Bars and Camels?

Then we would have kicked their keisters harder than Muhammad Ali beating on an elementary school bully.

Nobody

But Nobody

Screws with our Hershey bars.

Nomnomnom!





Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

What?

Canada send volunteers first, then the conscripts in 1944.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1944

M_Stress wrote:

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

What?

Canada send volunteers first, then the conscripts in 1944.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1944

I once had a crisis of conception myself.

No wait, I think I read that wrong.

On George's post about hypotheticals:

The one I wondered at, after watching Tora! Tora! Tora! and Midway, was what would have happened to the pacific theatre if the US carrier group had been in dock at Pearl Harbour that day.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:On George's post about hypotheticals:

The one I wondered at, after watching Tora! Tora! Tora! and Midway, was what would have happened to the pacific theatre if the US carrier group had been in dock at Pearl Harbour that day.

No change. Wild Bill Halsey would have leaped into the air and literally ate any planes trying to attack his ship.

Does the original question involve just the military fighting or the lend-lease scheme as well? The Russians were getting a heap of support from the US in terms of equipment.

I think Germany would have been able to hold on to alot of its gains in Russia more easily if it only had the Royal Airforce bombing its industrial areas rather than the US as well. Morale also would have been higher.

Without the US landings in Africa it would have continued on down there at the very least and it would be unlikely that Mussolini would have been deposed.

Which means all the german units deployed to Italy could have been deployed elewhere. Add in the extra units garriosoning France in anticipation of a US/UK landing and you have 1 army group at least to send east.

Problem for the Germans ultimately was that they had too many objectives with too few resources. With the above changes they could have increased the resources, but they needed to remove the UK (invasion or peace settlemet) from the war before moving against Russia, or they should have settled in for a fight with the UK and its territories in the middle east and Africa and left Russia alone.

In the end Germany fought a war on three fronts.