Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting Baroque (Reply 1): You might need to set out a few more parameters for "your" war. |
Quoting Baroque (Reply 1): I presume you still have development of the RR engined Mustangs |
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2): Agree in principle, Baroque. But 'ave an 'eart' - they don't dish out Ph.Ds for A.net posts! Nor do they set 'minimum lengths.' I HAD to stop somewhere! |
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2): My central point is, if Japan and the USA had not joined in, would the outcome have been any different? |
Quoting NAV20 (Thread starter): 8. In the meantime, nothing that Hitler had available would have prevented all the major cities of Germany being reduced to rubble by the RAF. |
Quoting NAV20 (Thread starter): 9. And, finally, by 1946 at the latest, the horror of atomic bombs would have been unleashed on Germany, instead of Japan. |
Quoting Baroque (Reply 3): Another issue has come to mind, if there had been no US assistance, how would Bletchley Park have gone with the 4 rotor Enigma? Not that it could not have decoded the material, but without the extra bombes from the US would it have been timely enough? Once Colossus got going, OK, but Colossus was a bit late - I think without checking. |
Quoting Baroque (Reply 3): As far as damage is concerned, I think you underestimate the quality of the large bombers that were never developed properly by Germany. |
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 4): Not sure if as much of Germany would have been reduced to rubble as you think, probbly a lot more of the UK would have suffered under German bombing. |
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 4): Germany was also researching atomic weapons, who's to say that if the war was prolonged they could have developed it first, plus they had a delivery system in the V2 that was far better than anything the allies had. |
Quoting Baroque (Reply 3): What about the money? OK for Russia, they did not have to worry about money, but capitalist UK did. |
Quoting Baroque (Reply 3): I think the US would have ended up in the war anyway, due to the U-boat campaign. |
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 6): The Bombas were designed to crack German Enigma traffic, which (in form of the three rotor enigma was used for tactical signals by the German Army and Luftwaffe, while the Navy used the four rotor enigma for their signals to and from the U-boats). The Colossus machine was used for a completely different set of enciphered signals: Those enciphered by the German Lorentz Geheimschreiber, a telex / chiffring machine, which used a much more difficult to crack code and was used for signals of strategic and diplomatic secrecy. |
Quoting Baroque (Reply 8): Then again, it is difficult to know how a UK only program would have developed. Certainly not a usable weapon in 1945. |
Quoting NAV20 (Thread starter): 1. The simple fact that Britain did not oblige Hitler by surrendering in 1940 meant that Germany (even after being joined by Italy) could not win. The only remaining question was whether Britain and the Empire/Commonwealth could muster enough resources not just to avoid defeat, but to ‘win’ in their own right. |
Quoting NAV20 (Thread starter): . BUT, one also has to assume that Hitler would have invaded Russia anyway. |
Quoting NAV20 (Thread starter): the situation would almost certainly have been that Germany had failed to capture Moscow before the onset of winter, and was having awful trouble around Stalingrad. |
Quoting NAV20 (Thread starter): And that Commonwealth forces had defeated Rommel, the Afrika Korps, and the Italians at Alamein, and were setting about the task of driving them right out of Africa. |
Quoting NAV20 (Thread starter): Britain had begun developing four-engined bombers, capable of carrying up to ten tons of bombs, as far back as 1936 |
Quoting NAV20 (Thread starter): Germany did not have a proper navy – only submarines |
Quoting NAV20 (Thread starter): the British ‘Maud Report’ had established the feasibility of the atomic bomb. And even set out a ‘production plan’ which envisaged production of the weapon by late 1944 or early 1945. As things turned out, once the USA entered the War, the sensible thing was for the USA to develop the new weapon |
Quoting NAV20 (Thread starter): 8. In the meantime, nothing that Hitler had available would have prevented all the major cities of Germany being reduced to rubble by the RAF. |
Quoting Baroque (Reply 1): that might not be what would have happened. You would also have to produce a solution to the Japan-US argument over China and the blockade of oil supplies. |
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5): I disagree. Britain was on the verge of financial collapse at the end of 1941. By early 1942, the British economy would have collapsed, forcing the UK to sue for peace, leaving Hitler a free hand to concntrate on the Soviet Union. |
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 11): What would have happened it Hitler had listened to his Army commanders instead of Goering at Dunkirk. Would the loss of manpower have caused the Brits to sign a deal?? And if not would they have the manpower left to be any real threat for a long period of time? |
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 10): The U-Boats would still be roaming the Atlantic coast to try and stop this flow and bringing the US into the war |
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 10): Quoting NAV20 (Thread starter): And that Commonwealth forces had defeated Rommel, the Afrika Korps, and the Italians at Alamein, and were setting about the task of driving them right out of Africa. It took the help of the Americans to do that |
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 10): Once again without the 8th Airforce the English would have had a hard time alone. Even with the 8th and around the clock bombing the airmen took terrible losses. I would call this portion a tossup without the US |
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 10): And after WWI and the WWII so far they just did not have the manpower left to carry on alone. Especially the manpower and material for a cross cahannel invasion |
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 10): Do not take me wrong. I love England and the British people and am a big fan of Churchill |
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 10): Without the US in the war |
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 10): I think that the amount of resurces needed from the US |
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 10): Without the US in the war I doubt that the UK could of kept up any pressure in the MED and espesially Italy. |
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 10): It took the help of the Americans to do that |
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 10): I would call this portion a tossup without the US |
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 10): Without the outright financing by the US |
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 10): And they would off have to tely on a ton off aid from the US. |
Quoting AGM100 (Reply 17): I have always wondered how it would have been if Japan had been able to capture and fortify PH. If Japan had held us of from gaining our early footholds in the SP islands by forcing us to waste time invading PH it may have given them more time. More time to build there fleet and further reinforce Saipan , Guam, Tinian, Iwo etc. |
Quoting AGM100 (Reply 17): Good thread , interesting. I have always wondered how it would have been if Japan had been able to capture and fortify PH. |
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18): Once the US refused to surrender in the first 6-7 months, it was all over but the fat lady. Even Adm. Yamamoto knew that. |
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18): Time was the last thing Japan needed. |
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 19): I don't think that Japan ever considered capturing Hawaii. |
Quoting AGM100 (Reply 20): Interesting the personalities within the Japanese admiralty , No offense but not the brightest lighthouses were they?. |
Quoting Baroque (Reply 21): If they had used their subs better, |
Quoting AGM100 (Reply 22): Quoting Baroque (Reply 21): If they had used their subs better, Yes like maintaining a submarine recon picket around PH would have helped. Why didn't they ? Could they not support them that far from port? |
Quoting Baroque (Reply 23): very keen on fancy missions |
Quoting AGM100 (Reply 24): Are you referring to sub launched torpedoes Klaus ? I did not know that it was a problem . |
Quoting PSA727 (Reply 27): Japan was already at war in December 1941, just not with the U.S. And Hitler had already invaded Russia by the time of Pearl Harbor. I do believe that Japan would have made advances into Russia from the east had it not been drawn into combat with the U.S. |
Quoting PSA727 (Reply 27): All in all, what probably would have happened in Europe would have been a German occupation and dominance of continental Europe, |
Quoting GDB (Reply 15): It is also impossible to imagine Churchill ever suing for peace, though he was not immune to Parliamentary censure, while the general election due by 1940 was suspended by the forming of his coalition government, by-elections were fought, the coalition did not always win. |
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18): Even Adm. Yamamoto knew that |
Quoting AGM100 (Reply 17): Could the Japanese sustain a occupation force and defense of PH is the question I guess |
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 19): I don't think that Japan ever considered capturing Hawaii. That woud heve required a lot of soldiers, and even they didn't have unlimited supplies of those. Japan's objectives were to secure the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) and their oil; |
Quoting Us330 (Reply 34): Wasn't he the one who said "i fear we have woken up a sleeping giant," or am I getting my historical facts mixed up with a Michael Bay movie? |
Quoting Us330 (Reply 34): The biggest problem with this scenario that you have laid out is that it completely ignores the fact that the U.S. and Japan would have eventually come into conflict in the Pacific. Either directly (PH, philippines) or indirectly (an attack on australia). |
Quoting Us330 (Reply 34): To add a condition to your hypothetical, what would have happened if the Pearl attack had achieved its full purpose, and taken out both the fuel storage facility and the pacific fleet carriers? |
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 36): To invade Oz, they would only have had two options. Either they would have had to land on the northern coast - and be faced with having to cross up to 2,000 miles of largely-waterless desert before they got anywhere near the centres of population; or they'd have had to land in the south-east corner, which would have stretched their lines of communication from 'incredibly-long' to 'impossibly-long.' |
Quoting NAV20 (Thread starter): once Hitler ‘cried off’ invading Britain in 1940, he’d lost the War. Even if Japan and the United States hadn’t joined in, the only remaining questions, from 1941 on, were how much longer it would have taken to defeat him, |
Quoting Baroque (Reply 3): Well Russia would still have won, although Stalingrad might have been more painful without boot, not sure if the trucks had made that much difference by late 1942. One disadvantage might have been more pressure on the Arctic convoys - had a cousin on an ex US 4 stack destroyer on some of those and he did not enjoy them!! Once Russia survives to Citadel, it does not matter much what anyone else does. As far as damage is concerned, I think you underestimate the quality of the large bombers that were never developed properly by Germany. If you took an He 177 and improved it as much as the Manchester to the Lanc, that would have been awkward! |
Quoting Cairo (Reply 40): Germany was defeated by Russia. |
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 28): Don't follow that, PSA727? Japan was not involved in WW2 until Pearl Harbor, when it attacked the USA and Britain simultaneously, in December 1941. Japan never declared war on Russia. Nor did Russia do anything to help the other allies in the Far East. Stalin only declared war on Japan on 8th. August 1945 - two days after the Hiroshima A-bomb - in a vain attempt to get himself a 'seat at the table' and a share in the postwar occupation of Japan. |
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 28): Don't follow that, PSA727? Japan was not involved in WW2 until Pearl Harbor, when it attacked the USA and Britain simultaneously, in December 1941. |
Quoting PSA727 (Reply 27): I think this hypothesis is flawed to begin with. Japan was already at war in December 1941, |
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 28): Don't follow that, PSA727? Japan was not involved in WW2 until Pearl Harbor, when it attacked the USA and Britain simultaneously, in December 1941. Japan never declared war on Russia. Nor did Russia do anything to help the other allies in the Far East. Stalin only declared war on Japan on 8th. August 1945 - two days after the Hiroshima A-bomb - in a vain attempt to get himself a 'seat at the table' and a share in the postwar occupation of Japan. |
Quoting PSA727 (Reply 42): I'm not sure exactly when Japan invaded Korea, but I thought that it was also prior to Dec 7, 1941. |
Quoting PSA727 (Reply 42): There's probably millions of Chinese who might argue differently. |
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 43): Losses were very heavy - around 60% of the force by the end of the campaign:- "Air raid casualties in Britain during the first five months of 1944 totalled 1,556 killed, with 2,916 seriously injured. During the five months of Operation Steinbock, the Luftwaffe lost about 330 bombers and crews. Thus, for every five people killed on the ground, the raiders lost one bomber and four trained crewmen killed or captured." http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/features/the_baby_blitz-1.php |
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 46): The Japanese thought that that Hitler would win in Russia - |
Quoting Baroque (Reply 3): Well Russia would still have won, |
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 10): Quoting NAV20 (Thread starter): . BUT, one also has to assume that Hitler would have invaded Russia anyway. What was he thinking?? |
Quoting Baroque (Reply 3): . I think the US would have ended up in the war anyway, due to the U-boat campaign. Probably some sort of a repeat of 1917 but not needing the Zimmermann telegram. |