WW2 What If?

[Al B. Sure!]

Gone after the American carriers, at least sooner than they did, rather than piecemeal the Combined Fleet against anything and everything. That's not the point I'm making, though. With American carriers afloat, the IJN dithered before finally targeting the one element in the Pacific with the capability to defeat them. With those carriers out of commission, there's no reason to think they'd have dithered less, leading to my original point that I agree with you that they may not have actually accomplished anything more than what they did if our carriers had been at Pearl.

But is them 'dithering' more a case of the Japanese having had more success than they expected at Pearl and the first few months after Pearl (taking the Philippines, Singapore, Indochina, the East Indies, and islands all around the Pacific all the while fighting a land war in China) and becoming overextended? I don't think it was dithering. I think the Japanese literally had no other targets they could legitimately hit and their supply lines were probably already strained.

So I suspect you're right about destroying the US carrier fleet not making a difference but not because the Imperial Navy was dithering, but because of the limitations of the Japanese Army and Navy at that time.

[Al B. Sure!]

If you were to start such a thread, I for one would be interested in reading it.

While I'm sure Lonestar and Dave Floyd are well-read and know a lot about this, is it just me or do their comments have a hint of "Rah rah! America!" bias to them? Dave called America the hand of God...

I'm skeptical with regards to all these claims of the inferiority of the Germans and the Axis complete inability to ever win the war.

[Lonestar]

While I'm sure Lonestar and Dave Floyd are well-read and know a lot about this, is it just me or do their comments have a hint of "Rah rah! America!" bias to them? Dave called America the hand of God...

Most of my comments have been about the inability of the Germans to defeat the British, dumbass.

I'm skeptical with regards to all these claims of the inferiority of the Germans and the Axis complete inability to ever win the war.

Yeah I know, right? It's almost as if weight of numbers, geography, and technical superiority were working against the Axis but for the Allies.

[Al B. Sure!]

Yeah I know, right? It's almost as if weight of numbers, geography, and technical superiority were working against the Axis but for the Allies.

The underdogs have won plenty of wars they had no business winning.

[Lonestar]

The underdogs have won plenty of wars they had no business winning.

*snort*

Like? Or are you going to try to compare limited wars like Korea and Vietnam as examples, and pretend that they are exactly like a war-to-the-knife like WW2?

[Lonestar]

I'm going to make a prediciton that you're going to find some pre-industrial war and use it as an example.

[Al B. Sure!]

Here's an interesting what if that I'm sure Dave has thought about since he mentioned the D-Day landings not being a foregone conclusion... the D-Day landings get repulsed. Now, obviously, Germany by the summer of 1944 was screwed anyway but what would have been Eisenhower's next move? Concentrate on Italy and invade through Southern France? Rebuild and prepare a second invasion? How long would that have taken? A year?

I'm just thinking without having to worry about France, instead of the Soviets hitting Berlin in April, maybe they get delayed until Fall 1945? Truman has nukes, originally intended for use on Germany. What you think? Hamburg and Munich get nuked, the US Army, if it even lands in France, is playing catch-up with the Soviets?

[Al B. Sure!]

My exact thought process...

*snort*

Like? Or are you going to try to compare limited wars like Korea and Vietnam as examples, and pretend that they are exactly like a war-to-the-knife like WW2?

No! For example...

I'm going to make a prediciton that you're going to find some pre-industrial war and use it as an example.

Really, though, I've read so much before that the Axis came close... obviously, by US entry into the war it was too late for Germany but things go differently in 1940, I don't see why they couldn't shape a situation that the USA would not have the heart to enter. I'm just skeptical reading the stuff you and Dave claim, especially in light of the jingoism both of you demonstrate otherwise (especially Dave).

[Lonestar]

Here's an interesting what if that I'm sure Dave has thought about since he mentioned the D-Day landings not being a foregone conclusion... the D-Day landings get repulsed.

How? This is actually important. Does everyone die on the first day? Does it last a few weeks and everyone is evacuated back to the UK? The Germans simply didn't have the manpower to crush the beachhead, so at worst I think you're looking at an Anzio-type situation.

Now, obviously, Germany by the summer of 1944 was screwed anyway but what would have been Eisenhower's next move? Concentrate on Italy and invade through Southern France? Rebuild and prepare a second invasion? How long would that have taken? A year?

Operation ANVIL was carried out without pulling equipment slated from the D-day landings(besides battlewagons that were providing NGFS), so potentially an invasion of Southern France still goes forward.

I'm just thinking without having to worry about France, instead of the Soviets hitting Berlin in April, maybe they get delayed until Fall 1945? Truman has nukes, originally intended for use on Germany. What you think? Hamburg and Munich get nuked, the US Army, if it even lands in France, is playing catch-up with the Soviets?

It is *extremely* unlikely that the Germans would be able to force the Western Allies off the beaches at Normandy. More likely we'll get an extended Anzio-type situation(which is what happened for a month anyway). In this case about as many German troops will be required in France as in the OTL.

[Al B. Sure!]

Wasn't there a whole business about Rommel not moving his forces up to the beaches and that giving the Anglo-American forces some time? I'm just imagining bad weather on the day of the landings combined with Rommel hitting those that land hard. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Al B. Sure!]

But okay, if the Western Front still happens just the Anglo-Americans gets held up and everything in the West happens a month or two later. The Red Army still is in Berlin in April. The US Army still is playing catchup trying to get to the Rhine while the Red Army has Berlin.

My focus is obviously on differences in the Cold War if D-Day was repulsed.

[Lonestar]

My exact thought process...




Really, though, I've read so much before that the Axis came close... obviously, by US entry into the war it was too late for Germany but things go differently in 1940, I don't see why they couldn't shape a situation that the USA would not have the heart to enter. I'm just skeptical reading the stuff you and Dave claim, especially in light of the jingoism both of you demonstrate otherwise (especially Dave).

The Axis didn't come close. They came very far, considering their limitations, but not "close".

PROTIP: Shaping a situation where "the USA would not have the heart to enter" means dropping unrestricted submarine warfare(remember, we were in a shooting naval war with the Germans before we officially joined the war) . This means tossing away what is basically the one way they have to put the squeeze on the UK after the BoB fails, meaning that material that would go to a huge escort program could go to strengthening the RN's main surface fleet, meaning the RM will fall harder than before in the Med, meaning that the Afrika Korps will wither on the vine since they can't get their supplies, meaning that the UK will actually be doing much better, war wise.

Wasn't there a whole business about Rommel not moving his forces up to the beaches and that giving the Anglo-American forces some time? I'm just imagining bad weather on the day of the landings combined with Rommel hitting those that land hard. Maybe I'm wrong.

Yup! Fun fact though, when he DID start moving they were shot to pieces by the NGFS operating off the coast anyway, which gives a certain implication that it would just mean his forces would die sooner rather than later.

And of course we also have to overcome the divided command of France that Hitler had implemented(Rommel being a good soldier and not willing to go against operational orders).

[Lonestar]

But okay, if the Western Front still happens just the Anglo-Americans gets held up and everything in the West happens a month or two later. The Red Army still is in Berlin in April. The US Army still is playing catchup trying to get to the Rhine while the Red Army has Berlin.

My focus is obviously on differences in the Cold War if D-Day was repulsed.

Why? In the OTL the Wehrmacht were surrendering en masse to the Western Allies, or rushing East to slow the Soviet advance. Such an event would likely happen again, and there's nothing to indicate that the Western Allies aren't going to be deep enough into Germany by the time of the surrender that Uncle Joe will have to abide by the occupation agreement.

Crap, he abided by the occupation agreement for Korea, even though there wasn't a single American on the Korean Peninsula. Uncle Joe was not a nefarious backstabber, at least not on the international scene.

At least not for the first year or so after the end of the War.

[Egbert]

While I'm sure Lonestar and Dave Floyd are well-read and know a lot about this, is it just me or do their comments have a hint of "Rah rah! America!" bias to them? Dave called America the hand of God...

I'm skeptical with regards to all these claims of the inferiority of the Germans and the Axis complete inability to ever win the war.

I don't see the "rah rah America".
I don't see how the Axis could have taken down the UK. No realistic hope of getting past the Royal Navy. Can't see Japan taking India, Australia, New Zealand, Canada or South Africa even assuming the USA stayed out.

I interpreted the "hand of god" meaning the Axis would be most definitely screwed if the Yanks jumped on them while they battling UK and Russia.
Umh, they did jump and the Axis did get screwed.

LoneStar. thanks for the link to Operation sealion. It was very interesting.

[Lonestar]

LoneStar. thanks for the link to Operation sealion. It was very interesting.

Since Albie and others are talking about the Pacific Theater, there's a link about the Japanese odds of winning an invasion of Hawaii here, and the OOB of an early loss of the USN carrier force here.

Neither make for happy reading if you think that the Japanese had chances to do much better than they did in the OTL.