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.

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.