How the Soviets Really Won WWII :)

[Saras]

conquer the World with my mighty Greek or Swiss armies once again (Swiss, Greek, Thai or Cuban aircraft carriers dominating the oceans is something that's why I love this game).
So, bye all. Sorry for my drunk rants.

How the hell do you do that??

[Patroklos]

No, they were in Burma because the Japanese were racist pieces of **** who thought they were the superior race, destined to rule the world, and wanted to subdue the barbarians in India and Southeast Asia. Also, if you claim that Japan was not expanding for the sake of expansion, at the cost of the war, then why in the hell didn't they wind down combat operations in China? Or, for Christ's sake, avoided WW2 altogether by simply withdrawing from China?

Oh, that's right. Because of a combination of pride and racism. You seriously, SERIOUSLY, misunderstand the motivation of Japan in the 1940s.

DK, you are again making things up and showing a bit of yellow man racism. Why is it not possible for you to look at the Japanese, a people with an industrialized economy who were building world class fleets, airforces and armies, as intelligent human beings capable of acting in rational self interest?

Your unfounded assumptions aside, here is the REAL reason why Japan invaded Burma, which is exactly what I said it was.

“Japanese objectives in Burma were initially limited to the capture of the capital and principal seaport of Rangoon. This would close the overland supply line to China and provide a strategic bulwark to defend Japanese gains in Malaya and the Dutch East Indies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma_Campaign#Japanese_conquest_of_Burma

So as you can see, if there was no Britain in the war, there was no reason to invade Burma.

The absence of a Burma front does not significantly help Japan. If they already have "a million" personnel spread throughout the Pacific, what is a 10-20% increase going to do for them? Not very much, is the answer. Furthermore, if Japan's problems weren't solved by the war in China, then why did they continue the war in China? The answer, of course, is that logical, reasonable war aims had absolutely nothing to do with what motivated Japanese decision making at the time.

Did you honestly just saythat 10-20% reinforcements are not helpful? Why don’t I ask Lee that while Gettysburg was slipping away. Why don’t I ask Guderian that question while he is stalling at the gates of Moscow? Why don’t I ask Nimitz when he is steaming off to Midway outnumbered 2:1? Why don’t I ask the commanders in Afghanistan that? Are you freaking serious, 10-20% reinforcements is hugely significant in any context!

As for China, the Japanese started the wider war for a reason, and it was not to conquer the US but rather to further their gains already ongoing war aims. However, once the war was started nothing other than racism on your part can explain why you can not fathom the Japanese making self preserving interests when it comes to prioritizing objectives within the context of the larger war.

Yeah, Vietnam isn't an exact comparison, but then again, what major battle in Vietnam did the US lose? Can't think of one, can you? And of course Japan stalled in China because they didn't have the men or material to occupy all of China - but just what in the hell is an influx of 100-200,000 men going to do, given the size of China and the troop levels already deployed? You're ****ing dreaming.

DF, stop. There is no reason what so ever to make any analogy to Vietnam, there are no similarities what so ever. You brought up Vietnam, you shouldn’t have, so leave it be.

It would give them 10 corps of troops to mount offensives to conceivably crush the KMT armies and make the pacification of China FAR easier for one. This is becoming tedious though, as you are so enamored with your pet theory that you are honestly discounting the complete absence of a major front and the release of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and attendant logistics as insignificant. Your position is utter nonsense in light of this alone.

Wait, I don't get it. Where are the extra Japanese troops going, China or the Pacific? You're trying to make both arguments? Hmmm...

They could go either place, and in either place they do a great amount of good for Japan. Again, your lack of imagination is exactly why your analysis is complete crap (and why you would be a crappy military leader).

In any case, even assuming they go to the Pacific, the US still retains the ability to win and maintain absolute control of the sea by 1943-1944. If it takes an extra year to starve them out, so be it, but it doesn't change the outcome of the war.

I didn’t say it would alter the end game, I still think America would defeat the Japanese, but that is another year of America tied up in the Pacific while Germany consolidates its position that much more.

No, because you can't just pack soldiers shoulder-to-shoulder on islands. You have to provide for the housing and supply of the soldiers, too. Even Japan had to do that. If you pack 100,000 men on Tarawa, so what? Look, the major amphibious battles of the war - Guadalacanal, Peleliu, Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc. - most of those were simply islands in an island chain. The US was looking for bases to use as springboards towards Japan. It didn't always matter which island or atoll the used. Japan didn't have the manpower to fortify everywhere, nor did they have the airpower or seapower to deny the US the ability to land anywhere they wanted. Again, the more Japanese soldiers that get deployed to Pacific islands only leads to more Japanese deaths.

1.) The great thing about there being no Burma front is not only is there now a great many troops to do with what you please, but all the logistics train that was supporting them (and it was no easy feat to support an army in Burma) is also free. To be more blunt, they had to feed/house/otherwise supply those soldiers in Burma too, and all those assets are still available to do so where ever else the go.

2.) And no, those islands were NOT picked at random (especially Siapan/Iwo Jima/ Okinawa, are you on crack?!?!?). They were picked because they were on a short list of Pacific islands that were had harbors capable of supporting the fleet or were large/flat enough to build airfields on. There were enough of these locations to afford some degree of island hoping, but as stated before the US would have to take some islands, and the more resources Japan has at its disposal the harder it becomes for the US to circumvent larger more well prepared islands..

You think the existence of Panzerarmee Afrika was the difference maker on the Eastern Front? I should just let Serb deal with that idiocy, but suffice it to say, you are making an asinine example.

Is this a serious post? Again, I wonder what Guderian would say if I offered him a half dozen fresh divisions while he stared at the glow of a burning Moscow through the snow in 1941? I am sure he would have refused them out of hand, right? Am I right!?!?!

You do realize DF, that when the German forces in Africa surrendered in 1943 they gave up of 275,000 prisoners of war? That’s just who was taken prisoner, there had been evacuating for months, there were over half a million troops in that theater at one point.

You seem to be oblivious to just how close run so much of this war was for all sides until 1944 when one got the decisive upper hand. So many battles were won or lost by a hair, for you to continually maintain that the deletions of whole fronts and availability of hundreds of thousands of troops is insignificant is ridiculous.

And yes, having hundreds of thousands of personnel freed up from Southeast Asia DOES NOT materially contribute to the Japanese war effort, at least not in any meaningful way.

I wonder if you realize the irony of you saying that when you just quantified how materially significant it is in the same sentence. I am going to guess no.

True, but the USN was so massive by the middle of 1943, and certainly by early 1944, relative to the IJN, that it could have easily supported multiple amphibious operations, given the availability of additional amphibious assets.

Besides the fact that you manufactured this lack of landing craft as a bottleneck of thin air in the first place, there is no reason to assume that that the landings were not restricted in the real time line out of a real fear of Japanese naval intervention. The Japanese fleet was still a potent force well into 1944. Not until Leyte Gulf, October 1944, was the USN really free to roam the Pacific without any serious challenge.

The simple fact that you are making this "comparison" only proves how much you absolutely fail to understand the facts of the war.

Except that you just said my analysis was “true” in the comment above this :crazyeyes:

It’s an illustrative hypothetical DF, stop being a douche. The point is that the size of the invasion forces available is irrelevant if 1.) you don’t have the sealift to move them or 2.) you don’t have the sea superiority to cover an invasion.

Excuse me, good point. The Dutch never surrendered officially. My fault. And their active participation in the war had a material effect on the outcome

****, the most active participation of the Dutch that *I* can think of was the Battle of the Java Sea. That certainly didn't end well for the Dutch, or the Allies in general.

Wow, and I thought the Norwegians were getting a bad rap earlier in this thread! Regardless of how effective you think the Dutch were in their resistance, the fact is they did resist and did not surrender as you stated, calling into question you competency to continue this discussion

Then why was there resistance when the Japanese rolled into French Indochina?

Because the Japanese didn’t even attempt to negotiate that usage, and just invaded. Vassal or not people tend to resist when being invaded unannounced.

Look, the Dutch government in exile HAD to know it didn't have a chance of repelling a Japanese invasion of the DEI. Yet they resisted anyway Sometimes, nations don't act according to what seems logical or rational on paper.

But they did know they had Britain and the US on their side. As I stated earlier resistance when there is a real expectation of relief from friendly forces at a later date is far different from resistance when any real expectation of relief is absent.

Sorry, but Indo-China was seized by Japan purely as the result of the German defeat of France in 1940. The Japanese saw weakness, and an opportunity to expand their empire, and they moved.

Again, you should actually look up the motives of the Japanese instead of just attributing whatever manga villain cliché floats your boat at the time. In reality the Japanese took Indo-China because the US was supplying the KMT via its ports. Germany was not at war with the US at the time, and thus wouldn’t stop them. See, you learned something today :goodjob:

[Patroklos]

Furthermore, the Japanese at this time don't know that the USN wouldn't be capable of interdicting the shipment of resources from DEI to Japan. In fact, that's much of the reason they went after Pearl Harbor in the first place, to preempt the possibility of American action against Japanese resources in the region. Also, again, remember that it wasn't the IJN that was making the major policy decisons, but rather the IJA.

Except if the Dutch East Indies are going to give up the oil anyway, IT DOESN’T MATTER. The Japanese attacked because they couldn’t get oil. If they can, they don’t attack. The whole impetus of the war in the Pacific is undermined by the capitulation of Britain and thus the Dutch in the first place.

Here is another history lesson for you. While most texts only mention the US oil embargo, it was not just that that brought the Japanese to war. On July 25th, 1941 the US announced its embargo. On the next day, however, Britain did the same along with the Dutch government in exile. I repeat, along with the Dutch.

Now let me ask you a question. Given our alternate timeline, do you imagine that a recently capitulated Britain and Holland would have done the same?

Here is another question for you. In 1940 the Japanese attempted to negotiate an increase in the oil they received from the Dutch as they were hesitant to be so dependant on the Americans. They wanted to increase their share of supply from 500K barrels to 3.5M barrels. The Dutch refused citing other customers (Britain).

Now let me ask you a question. Given our alternate timeline, do you imagine a recently capitulated Holland doing the same?

http://www.geocities.com/dutcheastindies/DEI_oil.html

I'm not saying it had 0 effect, I am saying that it had zero MATERIAL effect on the war, given that a)US production was significantly higher than German production could have been in any case, and b)German production increased every year of the war, including 1945, in spite of strategic bombing, an increase that ebbed only due to the occupation of German industrial and resource regions.

Do me a favor and look up the word material, you are doing it wrong. In any case, what I think you mean is that it would not have changed the overall outcome, but I am pretty sure that the American/Soviet/British soldiers/sailors/airmen who would have had to knock at a great many more thousand German tanks/ships/airmen would have a far more sobering opinion on that “material effect” you mention.

My notions aren't preconceived, they are facts. Strategic bombing may have had an effect, but the effect was NOT to reduce German industrial military production, from a year over year standpoint.

Please stop pretending your “year over year” standpoint benchmark is relevant, you pegged the argument to that because otherwise you have no argument. The fact is that strategic bombing contributed to a substantial decrease in German production that would have otherwise provided German with a great deal of war material over what it historically had. Your false benchmark for success is irrelevant.

In other words, you can't quantify it. Shut up.

I notice you have quantified a single thing in this thread. How about you take a break from blatantly fabricating allied surrenders and giving it a try?

Yes, the answer does seem obvious. One only has to reference ACTUAL GERMAN PRODUCTION FIGURES. Pay particular attention to the increase from 1941-42,1942-43, 43-44, and 44-early 45

You seem to think the fact that German year over year production statistics has anything to do with whether or not strategic bombing drastically reduced German production. As you were just educated about above, it doesn’t, so stop thinking that.

That's because the metric for defeat vs. victory was different. Patroklos, you are getting really tiring. You are being disengenuous and intellectually dishonest.

Look, the measure of victory in 1945 (our timeline) was the ability to repel the Soviet Union through conventional means, and without starting a larger World War 3. I say through conventional means, because we had already used our nuclear arsenal. We had a couple more bombs, but we were worried about the conventional war in Europe, and the political reality that the US public did NOT want to fight the Soviet Union, or accept the casualties necessary to win.

The measure of victory in WW2 was completely different.

What? No DF, the measure of victory was exactly the same, the liberation of Europe from German or Soviet aggression. Of course we had a foot hold in Europe in the case of the Soviets, but not reasonable person expected that we (the west) would not be thrown straight out of Germany if not the continent entirely if there was a shooting war.

Your point about preventing a WW3 is stupid. It matters not if the nature of a West vs. Soviet war was conventional or nuclear, it was WW3.

The point, DF, was that the enemy we would be facing on the in either situation was exactly the same; an enemy with overwhelming ground superiority, competitive air assts, and an inferior Navy. In our scenario Germany has the added bonus of a defensive ocean and not having suffered the destruction of war between 1941-1945.

So I ask you again, if nukes were not enough to secure victory against the Soviets in 1945-1949 when the Soviets did not have nukes and were in a FAR worse position than our hypothetical Germany, why he hell would they be enough to secure victory against that same hypothetical Germany?

You mean, besides the justification that we did historically? Yes, there was Allied assistance, but the lack of the Royal Navy would not have measurably changed the outcome of the conflict. Ultimately, the Royal Navy was too small to matter, given the eventual size of the US Navy.

That history never happened. There are no European bases to operate out of, which in itself is enough to throw the historical outcome out the window, but I will go on.

It is clear you have no understanding of the size of the forces involved. The RN, along with the commonwealth, was easily at least half the size of the US Navy, or in other words 1/3rd of the Allied fleet all told. I know you think 10-20% reinforcements is insignificant, so perhaps you think having 33% less forces available is also insignificant. You are wrong, so we will proceed with the assumption that you properly appreciate what the lack of access to such a force means. The US fleet, however, is not in the Atlantic though. The bulk of it is operating in the Pacific, so in reality the RN makes up 50% or more of the forces fighting the u-boats.

Now, the fact that the loss of the RN is hugely significant purely from a force ratio perspective aside, your analysis is predicting a repeat of the historical Battle of the Atlantic and thus is useless. The real battle was prompted by a need for Germany to intercept convoys destined for Britain, which in our scenario is no longer necessary after 1940/41. While we are assuming a Germany and US at war, there really is nothing for the US and Germany to fight over in the Altantic until at the very least after Japan is defeated. I would have assumed that you would understand that the circumstances are radically different in 1945 than in 1941, but I now know better.

We have already gone over what the new battle would look like, but it remains that given the above you have yet to give any reason why this new battle will resemble the actual one.

Because I don't advocate invasion. Could the Luftwaffe have provided a serious disincentive to US carrier forces, even as late as 1945? Sure. Would that have changed the outcome of the war, ultimately? Hell no.

So whats your position then? That America will just sit around twiddling its thumbs marinating a war that keeps it from trading with anyone but South America for most of a decade until it produces enough nukes? BRILLIANT!

I like how you said “even” as late as 1945, as if the disparity in force ratios or aircraft capability is somehow getting better for the USN vs. all Axis air forces as the years go by as opposed to the reality of it getting consistently worse.

Yep, but again, I'm not advocating an invasion of Europe, nor have I ever in this thread advocated such an act. As for the ability of U-boats to sink a "great many" warships, why don't you look at the results they actually achieved during the war? The answer might surprise you.

You do understand that despite the fact that U-boats did sink several carriers and battleships during the war and hundreds of other warships, there purpose was to sink convoys and AVOID warships. This is of course a reality of the circumstances of the actual timeline, which is of course radically different from the circumstances of this one and yes I understand that difference is lost on you.

Because the measure of victory was DIFFERENT. How can you compare the two? There was no public will for a war against the Soviet Union at any point in your time frame. Also, the US had an obligation to defend Western Europe against invasion, in your Soviet scenario, which wasn't the case in the scenario we are discussing. They are two different things. If you want to discuss a possible US-Soviet war in 1945, start a new thread.

DF, you are the one saying you can defeat Germany with nukes alone. This is a Germany much more threatening than the Soviet Union faces in the actual 1945 that you yourself admit COULDN’T be defeated by nukes alone. Think about that for a minute.

First of all, I think Serb - who presumably should know - would strongly dispute your characterization of the Soviet resistance. Furthermore, you are also missing the point that Germany wouldn't be occupying all of the Soviet Union, but rather would have to deal by realistic necessity with a rump Soviet state, which would have possessed a significant army. That would have meant that in addition to the hundreds of thousands of soldiers engaged in anti-partisan activity - which would only be exacerbated by SS and Nazi excesses and death camps - the Heer would also be required to maintain significant forces to guard against the Soviets re-opening the war.

1.) I didn’t miss that DF, I stated it myself. I then discussed this with Blackcat concerning how Japan would deal with a Russian rump state.
2.) If the Soviets surrender they do so because they are compelled to via circumstances, include the defeat of their army. Confined to the stewing in the Far East and Siberia, there is no real expectation that they could maintain their force levels over the at least half decade it takes for America to turn its attention to Europe. They most likely be unable to feed themselves let alone rebuild an army.

[Patroklos]

3.) As has been told to you before, the Germans had to deal and did deal with the partisans in the actual timeline. Even if they have to use just as many troops to fight partisans this time around (and they won’t as has been discussed), and even if troops have to be left to guard the border, that still releases MILLIONS of German soldiers to do whatever the hell Germany wants.

Get this through your thick skull DF, there is no way Germany defeating Russia is a bad thing for Germany. No matter what happens this releases hugely significant resources of all types for use elsewhere.

Yes, initially this was correct. That is, until the Germans sent in the Einstatzgruppen. Why in the **** do you think the partisans had so much support? ****, man, the Ukrainians and Balts HATED the Soviets, and Stalin - even Serb would agree with that, I think. It's just that Hitler was conceptually incapable, due to racism, of properly capitalizing on anti-Soviet sentiment on those areas.

DF, I am sure the Einstatzgruppen will indeed be as active as ever. However, you are discouting the fact that all the destruction across all fronts in Europe that happened between 1942-1945, or in other words most of the destruction of the war period, NEVER HAPPENED. I think you are completely at a loss as to how much of the atrocities were the result of pissed off troops roaming the countryside doing whatever the hell they pleased. A Russia with several less million Germans running around the place with guns and Einstatzgruppen is going to be a far better place that one with several million Germans running around with guns and Einstatzgruppen.

Again, get this through your thick skull DF, there is no way Germany defeating Russia is a bad thing for Germany. No matter what happens this releases hugely significant resources of all types for use elsewhere.

Yes, you're quite right. The Polish Home Army did assume the Soviets would relieve them. And the reason the Soviets didn't do so was entirely due to their desire to destroy any forces opposed to communism. With that said.

No, its not, you lying ****. I said that resistance would ebb in many instances once it is clear the European is won and over with and nobody was coming to save them. You said not only was this false, but that the Warsaw uprising had nothing to do with the Soviets. You were flatly wrong on both counts.

I am 100% confident that the Poles would have revolted IN ANY CASE. They were being slaughtered wholesale, and they had managed to gather some significant amount of military equipment - certainly enough to defeat the German garrison of Warsaw, for example. They were bound to move, no matter the outcome.

I said just that, but Poland is not indicative of the circumstances of most of Europe. And despite that, they still didn’t go all out until they thought the Soviets were close.

Yes, because by and large, French, Dutch, and Greek citizens were not being shipped to extermination camps. And even given that, there were SIGNIFICANT resistance operations in each of the countries you mentioned.

Well that’s the point isn’t it, that they were not treated as harshly there and the resistance efforts there paled in comparison to Poland, did they not. And of course there was resistance there, because there was still very real expectations of liberation from still undefeated Allie armies sitting in England. You can pretend the absence of that real expectation would have been irrelevant, but you would be obviously wrong.

Sorry, which portions were those? Serb, feel free to jump in here to correct this guy.

It is quite obvious that the entirety of the Ukraine would have been made a giant puppet state, something the Ukrainians have wanted for hundreds of years. Same with the Caucuses, and of course the Baltic States would have been made independent again (even if dominated by Germany). Any of these actions would greatly reduce the partisan activity Germany would have had to deal with.

You're gonna have to be more specific. Exactly which "non Holocaust related sadism" are you referring to?

Perhaps you think it was a pretty thing when Soviet and German armies were beating each other to a bloody pulp inside each others cities. Unless you are retarded, it is obvious that two ideologically motivated armies slugging is going to yield quite a bit of atrocities, not to mention the untold suffering the general results of years of campaigns take on cities and countryside that bring misery to people in general. The horrors of the Holocaust continues no doubt, but the horrors of war between 1942-1945 do not occur.

Because that obviously happened historically. I mean, look how effective Vichy France was as a German puppet state.

You have been educated as to why Japan took Indo-China, which is unexpectedly not related to the fiction in you mind in the slightest. Hopefully this will keep you from continuing to beat this failed avenue of yours to death, but I doubt it 

I think you underestimate the resolve of the Soviet Union.

The opposite is the case. You seem to think they will surrender while they still have reasonable means to resist. I think they surrendered because they fought until they no longer did. Why are selling the Soviets short?

Yes, carpet bombing from 40,000 feet would not be effective. Unfortunately for your argument, atomic bombing would be.

Except, as has been told to you over and over again, the US does not have the means to do this until at least the late forties. In fact, you even say this yourself…

But you need to understand that new designs don't appear overnight. The B-36 was conceptualized in 1941. The B-29 was a compromise design, based off design requirements from the B-36, but still a result of an adequate implementation of the B-36 concept. Let's say that in 1943, the Germans saw a need to develop, design, and deploy a new generation of high altitude fighter. Just why in the hell do you assume they would have been able to deploy that aircraft prior to the introduction of the B-36, which had been conceptualized 2 years before?

1.) Your characterization of the B-29 and B-36 program is gross in its inaccuracy. For one, the B-29 was not a compromise, its design dates back to 1939.
2.) Designing fighters is always easier than designing bombers, because fighers don’t have to travel between continents. Do you have any idea how many fighters the Soviets and Americans designed AND fielded between the various generations of their bombers? Want an example? The Americans had the F-104-Starfighter developed from concept to prototype in two years. The F-86 Sabre took three years and change.

Except that, if it did, it is very likely that the B-29 could have conducted an atomic attack. Even if/when the A-bomb missed it's target, it would still have caused massive destruction and panic.

So again we are back to this fantasy world where all you have to do is drop a nuke and magically Germany throws in the towel

If only someone had told Truman that in 1946, we could have avoided the whole Cold War!

Good point. Historically, the Americans found a way to deal with it, but the Germans didn't. You can argue that given more time, they would have done so, but you really can't back up that argument.

Yeah, I mean it wasn’t like the whole nation of Germany was crumbling around them and their industry was a smoking crater whole and their best and brightest were rotting meat in the steeps and their priorities were many but their resources little. Oh wait…

DF, THIS IS NOT THE GERMANY OF HISTORICAL RECORD! This is a what if, why not try what ifing a little bit?

But Germany still faces the same constraints, most importantly, the fact that Adolf Hitler made the strategic decisions, and also that German scientists simply had NO idea how to develop the atomic bomb. This was incontrovertibly proven after the war.

Yeah, I can’t understand why Hitler would have wanted a weapon of unrivaled power that is achievable given the resources of a Europe a peace. I mean, its not like Hitler had an affinity for wonder weapons or anything…

Possibly, but not in time to counter the B-36, which Germany not only didn't know existed, but also that Germany had no conception was even possible. I don't think you understand. The B-36 was simply a generation beyond any strategic bomber imaginable to most countries at the time.

Actually, DF, it was considered obsolete by the dime it entered service. Only 364 were ever build and that’s with the Cold War heating up. The existence of the B-36s is irrelevant to the fact that it is obvious that any power at war would have continued to push its equipment deigns to the limits of the technology available using the resources available, which means the Germans would have been pumping out the fastest, best armed, and highest flying fighters it could, especially since for some inexplicable reason America stubbornly remains at war with it.

[quote]Yes, and if anything, a drawing board "altered radically" in 1941-1942 would most likely not even include a countermeasure for the B-29, much less the B-36. German had no perceived need for such a counter.[quote]

Hmmm, I am Germany and I am only at war with America who is an ocean away, I wonder what that means!

Here is another history lesson for you DF. The B-36 was conceptualized because America was concerned that Britain would fall and that they would have no way to attack Germany from America. So if the Americans are thinking that, what do you think the Germans were thinking when examining that situation?

Imaginative? Sorry, be more specific. Tell me just exactly what design, of any warship or submarine, that Germany could have deployed to prevent the US from gaining control of the Atlantic by 1943-1944.

The late generation U-boats (which were really the first submarines as we know them) were more than capable of giving the USN a hard time. Of course the Germans would have about 1000 more of them than they did in real life since their dry docks weren’t being bombed and probably close to none were sunk during the 1041-1945 timeframe.

[Patroklos]

Yes, they just weren't a peer competitor in RELEVENT naval technology. The most advanced battleship in the world wouldn't even survive against a CVE, in most cases, to say nothing about the ability of a modern fleet carrier in 1945 to completely dominate the largest battleship imaginable. History proves my point.

Again, you are being unimaginative. Guess what DF, the technology used to build a battleship is basically the same technology you use to build EVERY warship. The same hull forms requirements, the same radars, the same gyroscopes, the same boilers, the same communications systems, the same range finders, the same thousand of other things that comprise a modern warship. And as has been mentioned, Germany was far and way ahead of the US in submarine technology.

Then name even ONE US fleet carrier that was sunk after 1943, by any power. The USS Franklin came close, but even it was saved. Also, your statement above proves my point.

Irrelevant, by 1943 the US had already engaged in a 2 year war of attrition where they indeed did lose a great deal of shipping to US submarines. Nor were the Japanese in any way dedicated to submarine warfare like the Germans were. And as has been pointed out to you MANY times, a Pacific war and an Atlantic war do not resemble each other.

Yes, absolutely the Soviet submarine force became a threat, once a)the US Navy was significantly drawn down even while the Soviet navy as built up and b)submarine technology began to exceed existed ASW technology. Neither of those conditions were all that relevant to Germany during WW2.

1.) The US carrier fleet was not significantly drawn down.
2.) A Germany in our timeline doesn’t need to build up after 1945, it has been doing so for half a decade before.
3.) Germany has had half a decade to develop its submarines unhindered. You seem to think submarine technology did not keep pace with ASW technology. You are wrong.

Really? Do you seriously misunderstand the Pacific War this much? Here's the facts. First of all, Japan did not produce ANY ASW/convoy escort ships between 1941-1944, at least to any significant degree. Secondly, Japan NEVER produced a CVE-type warship. Thirdly, US submarines did absolutely dominate the Pacific, but that was because Japan NEVER DEVELOPED A COUNTERMEASURE!! You can't apply the same argument against the US, because the US ultimately WON the Battle of the Atlantic.

1.) Japan produced a great many destroyers, corvettes and sea planes during the war, please stop making things up.
2.) Japan produced a great many small carriers during the war. They certainly were not as uniform as the US classes, but that was a problem with Japanese warships in general
3.) The Japanese developed quite a few countermeasures, including sonar, as the 54 US submarines sunk during the war will show clearly.

I think your racism is showing again. Why do you think the Japanese didn’t develop ASW capabilities?

Are you sure? If this was the case, why didn't the Japanese simply shoot down the B-29?

For the same reason they didn’t just bomb ships. They didn’t have pilots experienced enough to effectively fight their aircraft, its far easier jus to ram things.

Never mind the fact that the Japanese Army still opposed surrender, and in fact believed in Ketsu-Go, their defense plan against an American invasion of the home islands. The IJA informed the Emperor after the atomic attacks that there were 30 million Japanese ready to die for him. Military defeat didn't matter here; Bushido did. This is what you consistently fail to understand - our conception of logic and reason did not rule Japan during WW2. Their concept of honor, combined with racism, is what ruled Japan during that time.

Which is all irrelevant to what I said, given that despite all that Japan did act rationally and did surrender given the preponderance of circumstances against them.

This does not in any way justify your assumption that Germany will just surrender because they were nuked regardless of all other circumstances. It also does not explain why the US did not consider this a real option against the Soviets before they got nukes.

Given the fact that elements of the Wehrmacht - from Canaris in Naval Intelligence, to Himmler in the SS, to NUMEROUS officers in the Army - were constantly conspiring against Hitler, I can easily envision a few atomic attacks as providing the impetus for revolt and regime change in Germany.

This all changes in our scenario. Some of those were conspiring because they thought war would be disastrous for Germany, which in our scenario is obviously not the case. Others when they saw weakness, which a Hilter who just conquered Europe does not have. Either way, nothing in this direction is going to help you.

That's actually incorrect. While some battles were very hard fought - such as the Huertgen Forest - ultimately, the Germans surrendered far more readily to the Americans and British than they did to the Soviets.

I guess because the Japanese committed suicide instead of making the Americans dig them out from every dugout they didn’t defend the island tooth an nail right? DF, don’t be obtuse, the Germanys did not just let the Allies waltz through Germany, especially on the Eastern front.

I'm not sure unconditional surrender remains the standard. Remember, unconditional surrender might have been modified, if not for the Soviets. If the Soviets were out of the picture in this scenario, and a German coup ousted Hitler and the Nazis and offered to withdraw from Britain and France (as an example), as well as other easily imaginable terms, it's very possible the US would have agreed.

That’s nice DF, but why would a victorious Germany ever agree to such terms when they have all the advantages?

Supply an army across a large sea is always problematic.

They were already doing it to Tobruk, why you think changing the port of call the Haifa that is a mere extra day and a half away is a big deal is beyond me. Trust me DF, I have traveled it many times myself, it is no big deal.

Yes, but that didn't stop the supply of India historically, nor did Japan ever exercise long term effective control over the Indian Ocean.

1.) British supplies from India were either used in North Africa or Burma, or they were shipped clear around Africa (and suffered U-boat attacks in the South Atlantic).
2.) They Japanese don’t have to exercise control of the Indian Ocean, just access to it.

That actually isn't the point; the point is that the Heer had to constantly redeploy because it didn't have the force structure to operate on multiple fronts.

Which of course just further illustrates that they were quite capable of redeploying to wherever they wanted to in short order.

How? An earlier attack in 1941 has been seriously debunked as a war winner, due to the mud. I'm not sure how Soviet dispositions or decisions would have changed, even if Britain was out of the war. I'm also not sure why Hitler wouldn't have decided to go after the Ukraine, rather than Moscow, in August/September of 1941, no matter what the situation, given that he saw the opportunity to destroy 700,000 Soviet soldiers. He still would have had the opinion that his "generals understood nothing of the economic aspects of war" - that's virtually a direct quote, when Hitler insisted on avoiding an "early Moscow" campaign. As has been pointed out, Lend-Lease wasn't all that significant early on, when it came to stopping Germay (granted, it was essential in the actual defeat of Germany).

DF, a 1941 victory was not debunked because of the mud. The Germans made it to within sight of Moscow and then withdrew because most of there divisions were below 20% effective while the Soviets were using fresh divisions. Now you see why 200K troops can be such a big deal, as 200K troops = 10 fully manned divisions. If the manpower being used to ward off Britain in the low countries, France, Norway, North Africa, Greece, etc were actually in Russia in 1941, that is hundreds of thousands of troops available not to mention the logistics capabilities no available and far more effectively used on one front instead of spread all over Europe.

[Ben Kenobi]

I am assuming that this is what happened, as Ben's posts all seem to consist of exactly the same message and I can't be bothered to read anything Serb writes, ever.

Posting without reading.

[Heraclitus]

All I can say is God bless Hitler. Without him such deep disscusions and many great video games would not be possible.

[Serb]

How the hell do you do that??

Do what? A mighty Swiss Empire?

http://www.box.net/shared/amy74dn1t8

I'm good. That's how.

p.s. White spots are usless provinces I gave to my puppet Vichy to reduce partisan burden on my TC.