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.

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?