What if

OK Guys

OK Guys,

Before this becomes nasty I’m going to ask that we leave the ongoing conflict in the middle East out of this discussion Ann bought up a rather interesting topic and I think we have proven that nothing would have change except the out-come would have been a little longer. now if their isn’t any more question related to the topic then may I request we call it an evening before we have what happen on another thread that went South and alot of people including yours truely got out of hand.

Thanks Crazymainer

Dave,

Your first paragraph misses the point. Of course no Europeans wanted to send their sons to war, the problem is it was a European war!!America had nothing to do with Hitlers invasion of Poland, nor England and France’s pact o aid Poland. Like I said try to put yourself back in 1939, the US wasn’t a superpower, it had a large economy but a tiny military and was a small player on the world stage, so there was no imperative to get involved in another European war.
You seem to know alot about the businessmen of the period, but Rockefeller and Ford weren’t the entire US business community. I don’t doubt some made millions dealing with Hitler…thankfully we all wised up soon enough.
As far as whats going on today, Your probably right, I wouldn’t want to hear your opinions! 3,000 Americans die in a terrorist attack, and I guess we should just roll over and try to “understand” why these animals attcked. I will guarantee one thing,If New Zealand gets attacked I know who would come to your aid..I’m reading a book called “Raid on the Sun” about the Israeli attck on the Iraqui nuclear facility in 1981. It’s an interesting read, You’d appreciate it because it revolves more around the jets and mission, and less about the politics, but one question keeps coming up:
Why did Saddam Hussein want a Nuclear reactor so bad, when He was sitting on the second largest oil reserves in the world?
Take Care,
TTP

Dave Homewood,

I just re-read your post and you allude to the “fatcat” businessmen that held sway in the US…Put yourself back in our shoes in 1940…Here they go again, those Europeans starting yet another world war!!! after millions died in the first one!! why would any American feel compelled to send their son over to be killed? Don’t look at past events with the sensibilities of todays world. The US was the 17th ranked Army in the world in 1939!! Portugal had a larger Army!!! we were quite content and peaceful. Most Americans could have cared less about another European war.
Take a look at Europe today!! they are essentially arguing that they don’t need to get involved in the Middle East..its America’s war, why send our sons to die for a problem the US has? Its the same mind-set.

For one thing, I really don’t think most British people, or French (or New Zealanders! And many other nations), wanted to send their sons off to war either – they’d lost a lot more in the First World War than the USA ever did. But when you’ve got somone like Hitler threatening to invade and destroy the world you know, there’s not a lot of choice, is there?

I am fully aware that the average US citizen didn’t want to get involved. I’m not saying the average Joe citizen was at fault in any way. But while neutrality is good for the citizens, its great for business. Many of the top US moguls of 1930’s and 1940’s business in the USA were Nazi sympathisers – Ford and Rockefeller had huge interests in Nazi Germany. Hitler knew how to make millions, he was a financial genius – but at what cost. To the outside world in the 1930’s he looked like a great role model and a great trading partner. As we know, many ultra-rich businessmen just see dollar signs in every opportunity, rather than consequences.

Would there even have been a Battle of France and the Lowlands, or a Battle of Britain, without the oil and money supplied to the Germans by these US businessmen? Hard to say, they may have sourced it elsewhere, but they had the greatest amount of support within the USA. It was when the supply of US oil was halted that Hitler had to look east to Russia.

As for today’s wars, if I told you what I think of that, it would have this thread pulled by a moderator. Go Europe!

Point taken, but lets tip the scales a little 😉 If Japan could not be held off until Germany was defeated, what would the impact be on Allied Global Grand Strategy? 😉 Anna

Ann,

As I point out in an earleir post their was no way that Japan could have taken Midway and held it more then six months tops. They just didn’t have the raw matirial to out produce the US. Also you have to remember not only were we building struff for us put we were build carriers for the UK, providing one-three of the material for the whole Allied Armys. thats alot of items that came from us. Their was now ay that the Tri-Pact could out-produce us end of story.

So back to your origianal question japan would have not been able to occuby Midway more then Six Months Tops and we would have shifted are attacks towards the Home Island much earlier and would ahve got the Russian involved in China in 44. Also the second front in Europe would have open alot sooner the June of 44. You would have seen the Italians taken out in late 42 then by-passing the German Army with a strike from the Med along with a attack by the Russians in the Balkans this was one of the three plans that was discussed in Casablaca.

Crazymainer

But you have made a huge leap Forward now?? lets bring it on slowly 😉 Anna Lets not rush :diablo: thats how wars get lost 😉 😀 😀

Entropy, I’m nnot telling anything else!

And it was a bit cheap from Stalin to wait until then to enter the war against Japan, but it’s true that there wasn’t much he had to fear there.

Just misunderstod you then, sorry! 🙂 Anyway, one must remember that when the agreement was made at Yalta in ’45 the allies were anticapating Operation Olympic, the invasion of the home islands. No one was expecting the war to end in September of 1945 and the Soviets would be a essential to tie up the bulk of the Japanese Army in Manchuria. Stalin’s entering the war in August was planned, the end of the war in Sept wasnt.

Flood
You are making a large inferring leap my lad :rolleyes: Anna 😉 😀

The Germans did not make great progress in updating their equipment in the war years – nearly all the gear they were using was developed pre-war. It’s the same with the Japanese. Neither side had good long range heavy bombers – yes there were some under development (for the Germans, at least) – in the main they were still using their old two engined jobs.
Japan did have some good, newer fighters in the last year of the war (which I can remember little about but suspect that they were slow growers from the pre-war period) but they were too little, too late. The Germans repeatedly updated their Bf109s and Fw190s and brought in their jets and rocket planes (Me262 and Me163) but whether they were ever available in enough quantity to make a real difference is debateable: fuel being a real concern and trained aircrew another. The Japanese developed Me262 and Me163 look-a-likes (the Kikka and the Shushui), neither of which got very far into their flight programs before the wars end. Neither the Germans nor the Japanese really developed their transport capability either – long range transport would be needed in order to keep their outposts supplied and to maintain the moral of their troops there, but very little was achieved (Germany tried to develop their heavy transport fleet, but they were slow and lumbering – both in design and development). Neither side did a great deal in developing their wartime navies either, other than submarines: the Germans relied on battleships and the Japanese didn’t do much more either – aircraft carriers were a pipe dream for the Germans and although the Japanese knew their value they did not increase their fleet enough to make a real difference, in the end…
German troops did withdraw but their senior officers usually paid the price (in the end) – the Japanese didn’t usually withdraw so normally lost all the men involved in a battle: that’s not something that helps to develop a training cadre utilising experienced soldiery. The loss of trained troops for both nations and the inability to replace the same would wear them down eventually, whereas the Americans had the industrial might to churn out aircraft and ships, tanks and soldiers, one item after another. In a war of attrition we can all see who would win, evenutally…
Basically, Japan could not have won the war.

Flood

Point taken, but lets tip the scales a little 😉 If Japan could not be held off until Germany was defeated, what would the impact be on Allied Global Grand Strategy? 😉 Anna

Dave Homewood,

I just re-read your post and you allude to the “fatcat” businessmen that held sway in the US…Put yourself back in our shoes in 1940…Here they go again, those Europeans starting yet another world war!!! after millions died in the first one!! why would any American feel compelled to send their son over to be killed? Don’t look at past events with the sensibilities of todays world. The US was the 17th ranked Army in the world in 1939!! Portugal had a larger Army!!! we were quite content and peaceful. Most Americans could have cared less about another European war.
Take a look at Europe today!! they are essentially arguing that they don’t need to get involved in the Middle East..its America’s war, why send our sons to die for a problem the US has? Its the same mind-set.

Dave, Anna,

Dave, take a moment to rethink your scenario. The reason Pearl Harbor was attcked was because the US was not sitting idly by while the Japanese were trying to expand in the Pacifac. Remember the US had already started to impose embargoes of Oil and other goods to Japan. Forcing the Japanese to attack in the Pacifac to secure their own oil production facilities. Second, Anna listen up..there is a reason why the US is called a superpower…Take a few moments of your time and start to research the amount of military hardware being produced by the US during the war. It is an INCREDIBLE number. Far outnumbering the COMBINED TOTALS OF ALL OUR ENEMIES BY A LARGE MARGIN!.There was not a nation on earth that could launch any long range attacks on the US so this immence military production would have continued unintertupted. We had one B-24 plant at Willow Run Michigan building B-24’s at a rate of one per HOUR/24 hours a day!!! we could have built 100 of those plants, and we had all the resources we needed right in our own nation ie Oil raw materials etc…and while its fun to engage in these scenarios so many people keep forgetting that for 4 years we had the worlds only NUKES as in NUCLEAR weapons..I don’t care how strong the Russians were, or the Japanese fighting ethic, the skies would have been filled with B-29’s dropping Nukes on every nation fighting us..What Russian/Japanese aircraft could have stopped that? Sure the Germans had the Me-262 but we had the F-80 by 1945 and would have built thousands, ditto for the English and their fine jets! I doubt the Japanese had anything even in the prototype stage that could pose a serious threat..Really take a moment to look at the US war production numbers for all weapons, and you’ll soon realize there was no way the Japanese or Germans could have won even if America had lost some more battles.
Take Care,
TTP

Entropy, I’m nnot telling anything else!

And it was a bit cheap from Stalin to wait until then to enter the war against Japan, but it’s true that there wasn’t much he had to fear there.

The famous ‘five minutes’ claim puts Japans defeat to timing 😉 Anna

When Stalin finally went for Japan, to get the Kurils, he went in with everything he had in the area. JS-3s leading the way…

Anna, do I know you???

The only reason he could do this was that the Soviets entered the war in August of 1945, as per the Yalta Confrence. All of these resources had been shifted from Europe and took three months to put in place (the Japanese knew it would take this long). They could not have launched a large attack pre August of 1945, impossible. In fact, the Japanese were quite taken aback when they marched into Manchuria and North Korea as they had been using attempting to use the Soviet Union for back channel talks with the US and Britian.

I can’t place you, sorry!

😉 Oh, thats a shame 😉 😀 😀 😀 Anna I will PM you 😀

I can’t place you, sorry!

I agree that the USA would have eventually stepped into the war if the Pearl Harbor attack hadn’t happened, because of their financial interests in the Pacific. I just thought it would be an interesting scenario to debate.

After all, they were neutral in the first two years of the Second World War and many US companies were creaming it big selling to both sides, especially in oil. George W. Bush’s grandfather Preston Bush was, I’m told, apparently one who supplied oil to the Germans to keep their war machine going – hmmm!

I know Roosevelt was simply waiting for an excuse to get into the war on the Allied side, despite pressure from the fatcat business men, many of whom supported Hitler. If Japan had gone the way I suggested, they’d have had little choice but to join in the war, and I agree the Allies still would have won.

Please do not feel that my suggested scenario or comments are meant to belittle in any way the efforts of the fine American men and women who fought for and saved many countries, including New Zealand, from the evil Japanese empire. It is amazing how much respect there still is among Kiwi Pacific veterans I’ve talked to for the US forces of World War Two.

When Stalin finally went for Japan, to get the Kurils, he went in with everything he had in the area. JS-3s leading the way…

Anna, do I know you???

Sure Do 😀 😀 😀 Anna 😉 :diablo: :diablo:

Oh my god…

Flood

More input 😀 😀 Anna 😉 😀

When Stalin finally went for Japan, to get the Kurils, he went in with everything he had in the area. JS-3s leading the way…

Anna, do I know you???