WWII:What if....

[ADarkJedi44]

I have long pondered World War II by myself but talking to myself isn't exactly exciting. Although most of you are insane, that doesn't mean your uneducated. ( ) Hopefully this topic will be of intrest to some of you.

Now here's how it's going to work. Someone will bring up a what if, then we will eat it to the bone. Every little aspect of it. Lets start with......

What if Japan had invaded the Soviet Union and not attacked the Americans/Dutch/British in the Pacific?

[wormie]

I n my opinion (not that it counts for much, being a Canadian and all ) IF Japan had attacked Russia, as Hitler had wanted, then the war would have gone quite differently. the US wasn't really active in WWII UNTIL the bombing of Pearl Harbour, doing that forced the US to become activly involved in the war, which inturn caused them to bomb Japan which lost Hitler one of his strongest Allies.

 

If Japan had invaded Russia though, Russia would have had to fight a war on two fronts, thinning their military. This MIGHT have given the Axis troops the edge they needed to win against them. Once they had Russia, they would have set there sights on England. Now, if they would have gone past that and taken over all of Europe is unlikely, but not impossible..

 

I'm done..

[ADarkJedi44]

The U.S. wouldn't have been able to enter the war indeed. There would not have been enough Congressional support for involvment beyond Lend-Lease etc. Japan's major problem would have been oil. Other than that, Japan would have gained complete naval superiority and Russia's massive army might have eventually been brought down.

 

Next subject?

[Brass_Bra_Leia]

adding on to the previous subect, I don't know, while congressional approval would have been hard to get, eventually I think the us would have become involved. There are too many Americans who have family of Jewish and European descent who were being persecuted. It may have taken a bit longer, but with FDR wanting to get involved so badly, eventually there would have been some cause to really push the US in it. Pearl Harbor just sped it up.

 

 

You were asking for a new topic, here is one I often pondered, if a child was raised in a world were they never saw violence, not at home, not in society, not in the media, would they still have the need to act out violence, would they have any violent tendencies (which we all have now). I have watched many little boys automatically pick up swords and guns and play with them, little girls don't seem to do this as often, no matter how the kids are raised. So is it biology pushing them, or the examples they get in society and the media.

[ADarkJedi44]

I was refering to a new topic involving World War II...but the subject you bring up is most intresting.

I just can't imagine that hundreds of thousands of US troops would be sent out to war without a good reason....

[Brass_Bra_Leia]

I was refering to a new topic involving World War II...but the subject you bring up is most intresting.

I just can't imagine that hundreds of thousands of US troops would be sent out to war without a good reason....

sorry, i thought you were discussing topics in general.

 

They wouldn't have been sent out without a reason. But as a proud US citrizen, I can say that the US does like being a big brother and getting involved in other people's problems especially if we feel it in some way does involve us. Sometimes this can be a great thing and sometimes it is not (and I don't think this is an appropriate place to debate that at all). I'm not sure of the country's mind set so much at the time, but I don't think it has changed that much. WWII was a great boost to the US's ego, but I think the country, as a whole, has always appreciated many of the blessings we have and has felt that everyone should be entitled to the same. Many Americans still feel very close to their ancestry. At that time, we had many citizens who had immigrated from Europe themselves or had parents who had. My thought is that with enough media coverage of the hollacuast, the US would have had the support to get involved. Maybe too late, but they would have eventually gotten involvoed. Another point to remember is the president can order troops into a war zone for 90 days (I beleive that is right) without congress ever voting on it. The control factor there is that congress votes to pay the military while at war, so if the president wants to stay involved with willing troops and supporting families and voters back home, he normally gets congressional approval or at least support before hand. On the other side, there has to be strong US dissention for congress to deny pay to militray. I mean, how would you look during re-election to everyone knowing that you voted agains paying US soliders.

Finding good reason really just depends on what you consider good reason. Spreading democracy and choice, had for many years, been good enough reason.

[Trejiuvanat]

I think that the US would have entered it, with or without Pearl Harbor. With Russia starting to advance in the European front, the US would have seen the danger of communism taking over Western Europe and that would vastly made up for whatever territory the Sowjets lost at Siberia, which in Winter and in Siberia would have made a hard battlefront for the Japanese.

The small but very influential Jewish minority in the US, would have pressed for the U.S. to go to war in Europe, mostly, I guess it was a matter of time waiting for the warring forces to tire so they could be defeated more easily by the fresh US troops.

[ElvisMiggell]

Hmmmm, i'm not so convinced. America was still in her period of 'splendid isolation'. The provocation of Pearl Harbour caused a complete reversal in American foreign policy, bringing them to today's current extremes. It's not unreasonable to imagine a Germanic Eurasia with America, or at least the USA staying as it was.

[ADarkJedi44]

I doubt the US would have directly entered the war for a while, and possibly not at all. Without the US's support it's doubtful that Britain and Canada could have single handedly launched an attack on Europe like D-day without getting thrown back to England. An operation similar to Torch would most likely have been possible, considering that Vichy French North Africa didn't exaclty fight to the last man. Rommel certainly would have been given more time. An invasion of Italy and/or the balkans also might have been possible, but Britain would be sapped of most of its strength and the terrain would have made a direct threat to the Reich itself non-existant for a while. Thus Germany would have been able to throw almost all of its manpower at Russia, delaying their advance considerably. Without a quick Russian advance, Germany's allies in Hungary, Bulgaria, Roumania and Finland would have not defected for a long while, thus providing more troops. Japan, however hostile the conditions were, would have provided a distraction for a decent force of Russian troops. End result: Perhaps a stalemate...

Anyone have another topic?

[Guest Admiral_Antilles]

AN interesting topic I found searching the records of old that popped up while I was gone. To get into the debate, I would say that the U.S. would have eventually entered the war, after seeing the Japanese move into Russia, by way of Siberia, they would see that the Japanese would gain many resources plus creating a larger communist area of power between the Axis as a whole. Not to mention giving the Japanese two fronts to advance on North America way of the Pacific Ocean and Bering Straight. I think the Bering Sea/Straight would have been unethical and probably would never happen but it is a route. Also the U.S. would see after the Japanese had controlled Russia they would advance on the U.S. via the Pacific.

[ADarkJedi44]

I don't know....Would the U.S. really have gained enough support for an attack without any direct aggresion towards it? I don't think many people would approve of having US boys killed to preserve European Empires....

[Jahled]

Japan DID attack the Soviet Union in 1939, about the same time as the Nazi's were invading Poland. There armies were soundly beaten by the Russians, in fact they suffered the heaviest losses ever suffered by the Japanese. When I get home i'll be able to provide further details.

[ADarkJedi44]

Yes indeed, but it was hardly an attack. The Russians learned of it first and smashed the unprepared Japenese. Zhukov had every advantage possible. Now if the Japenese had attack a little after Hitler had.....

[Jahled]

Khalkin Gol

 

Crushing Soviet victory August 1939 over the Japanese Kwangtung Army on the border of Manchuria and Outer Mongolia, about 645 km/400 miles northwest of Harbin; the most disastrous defea eversuffered by the Japanese Army, it is largely unknown in the West as attention was focused on Poland at the time.

 

The border between Mongolia and China generally follows the Khalkin river, but at this point cuts across a bend in the river, on the Manchurian side, for about 64 km/40 mi. In May 1939 the Japanese Kwangtung Army were probing the Mongolian border to find out just how serious the USSR was about the Pact of Muteual Assistance it had recently signed with Outer Mongolia. The japanese therefore pushed beyond the border line to occupy the salient and relocate the border on the river. A combined force of cavalry and infantry crossed the line 11 May; the Mongolian border guards called for help and a squadron of Mongolian cavalry drove the invaders back. Three days later the Japanese re-appeared in greater strength, supported by aircraft and occupied the disputed area. A Soviet infantry unit some miles behind came up to the river, and over the next month each side fed more troops into the area and the line of contact moved to and fro over the disputed ground.

 

By early July, the Japanese had 40,000 troops, 135 tanks, and 235 aircraft engaged. The Soviets now appointed General (later Marshal) Georgi Zhukov to settle the matter, giving him 12,500 troops, 135 tanks, and 225 aircraft. He confined his efforts to merely repulsing the Japanese whenever they moved, but this merely spurred them to greater effort and they increased their forces to 80,000 troops, with tanks, armoured cars, and artillery, and 450 aircraft. Zhukov had 35 infantry divisions, 20 cavalry squadrons, 500 guns, 500 tanks, and 600 aircraft in the area by August 1939. On 20 August he launched an encircling attack, opening with an intense air strike followed by a two-hour artillery bombardment. By 31 August the entire Japanese 6th Field Army was surrounded and virtually destroyed, over 50,000 being killed or captured.

 

Marshel Georgi Konstantinovinch Zhukov

 

Zhukov joined the Bolsheviks and the Red Army 1918 and led a cavalry regiment in the Civil War 1918-20. His army defeated the Japanese forces in Mongolia at Khalkin-Gol 1939; shortly afterward he demonstrated his strategic abilities in the High Command War Games and was made Chief of Staff. Initially overwelmed by the German attack in 1941 he defended Moscow 1941, counterattacked at Stalingrad 1942, organized the relief of Lenningrad 1943. He led Soviet forces in the battle in the Kursk salient, planned and executed Operation Bagration which resulted in the near-destruction of the German Army Group Centre 1944, and finally led his army to Berlin. He headed the Allied delegation that received the German surrender 1945, and subsequently commanded the Soviet occupation forces in Germany 1945, and subsequently commanded the Soviet occupation forces in Germany. After the war, he served as Soviet minister of defence 1955-57. He died in 1974.

 

Ian V Hogg

 

The Hutchinson Dictionary of Battles

 

Japan roused a sleeping giant when it attacked the USA, as the Germans did attacking the Soviet Union.

[ADarkJedi44]

Yes and in this scenario Japan attacks Russia instead of the USA. Perhaps it would attack the Dutch East Indies and Malaya, but otherwise concentrate on the Soviets. The US might have joined the war, but most likely not for a while. With less pressure on Germany, more of her troops could be sent to Russia. With Japan attackings, troops that would otherwise be used elsewhere would be diverted, whether the assault made any progress or not. I think the Soviet Union might have collapsed....

[Jahled]

I think you might have missed my rather grand point my friend; when Germany opened up the Easten Front they were doomed. Likewise, the Japanese; despite defeating the Russians in 1904, or when ever it was; shot themselves squarely in the heart when they attacked the United States. They were already engaged with the British Empire's interests in asia, as with the free-European soldiers fighting along side the British.

 

Bear something in mind which is extremely important. The Japanese as a nation only realistically opened-up to the outside world in about 1850. Whilst this makes their defeat of the Russians at the turn of the twentieth century all the more remarkable, it casts an illusion on a very realistic fact. Military-tradition is perhaps the greatest general of all, and they simply didn't have the experiance with the modern era to florish in the long term as a great military power. Sure Japan built the largest Battleships of the Second World War, but their fighting prowess was critically undermined by rather obvious reasons more established military nations (such as the USA and the UK) practised from experiance.

 

This is an example: The Japanese didn't rotate their pilots; in other words they simply left their pilots at the front on active duty. Whilst your boys in the States did exactly the opposite, and so had experianced pilots to train up new-recruits; the Japanese military machine didn't. Such was it's folly. All this 'fighting to the death,' crap worked against them as well.

There were very few experianced officers who survived defeats to offer practical information in debriefings.

 

Japan jumped in at the deep end and got soundly destroyed by the American military machine once it got going. It must also be added that the quality of commanding Generals on the American side simply eclipsed their Japanese counterparts; something also learnt from military tradition.

 

If Japan had concentrated their efforts on Russia... well, like the Germans they would eventially been logistically doomed. Combined with Germany I don't think would have made all that differance. The example I gave above concerning Zhukov proved one thing; when all was told, the Soviets had a better General than the main man opposing him. Inferior equipment, troops perhaps, airpower, were all overcome and defeated.

 

The Chinese btw weren't exactly a push over, in order for Japan to engage the Russians on their mainland, they would have to constantly be fighting the Chinese who arn't perhaps credited enough by history for their roll in the defeat of the Japanese.

[Guest Admiral_Antilles]

That's true, they would have seen resistance in China. And with their focus on the Russians a possible rebellion could have occured. Nice point there, Jahled.

[ADarkJedi44]

The Chinese were a nusiance. I don't think they ever posed that terrible a threat to the Japenese other than distracting them. They were a divided country and the nationalist forces were the weaker side.

Without the United states in the war, the Germans would have had more manuvering space and could put out more troops. With nearly everything concentrated on the Russians, could they really have sucessfully drove to the end?

[Guest Admiral_Antilles]

I think you pose to many ifs, Darkie. The French could have beaten everyone!

[ADarkJedi44]

This is a "what if" scenario....

[Stellar_Magic]

WWII...and someone says france would have beaten everyone...I hope thats a joke.

 

Actually Germany could have beaten Russia if they'd conducted their invasion properly. There is no way they could have held it however, because of a lack of man power.

 

The failure of Barborssa came down to strategic incompetance on the part of the German high command. Mostly due to Hitler's personal mettling on the matter. In addition to the stupidity of Germany's nazi policies toward the Ukrainians, those two things insured Germany's failure in 41, and without a victory in 41 any victory by Germany was unthinkable.

[Guest Admiral_Antilles]

WWII...and someone says france would have beaten everyone...I hope thats a joke.

 

 

Yeah, it totally was. I hoped someone caught on, because it seemed like darkie did not.

[ADarkJedi44]

Feh Antilliles it was obviously not serious. The French probably surrendered prematurly but other than that, they were almost as bad as the Italians!

Hitler was certainly not a good stratigist...His racial polices prevented him from reciving any help from the "natives" and his many blunders prevented him from taking Moscow and also resulted in such defeats as Kursk and Stalingrad....

[Guest Admiral_Antilles]

What makes you so interested in WW2 all the sudden, Darkie. BF 1942 getting to ya?

[ADarkJedi44]

I've always been intrested in WWII, just now I've had time to settle down and read some good books about it...

Perhaps Bf 1942 contributed a little