WW2 What If?

[Solomwi]

Well, going from memory, the only carriers in the Pacific at the time were Enterprise, Lexington, and Saratoga. Yorktown was in the Atlantic, Wasp and Hornet had not yet been commissioned, and Ranger doesn't count (unable to operate effectively in the Pacific).

OK, so the US loses 3 carriers. Obviously, Yorktown comes over immediately, while Ranger becomes the only carrier available in the Atlantic (this could cause some butterflies but they are outside the scope of this question). Obviously, with only Yorktown available for several months, the US is unable to act offensively, so there are none of the early war raids on Japanese island chains, nor is there a Doolittle Raid, or likely even a Coral Sea battle.

However, once Hornet and Wasp come online, the US has a core of 3 carriers in the Pacific. The IJN may attempt a Midway-style operation, and because of additional losses to US naval aviation (in the long run, the air groups and pilots from Enterprise, Lex, and Sara are actually more important than the carriers themselves), they may even win. Hard to gauge, really. The point is, though, that the Japanese are incapable of finishing the war. They cannot invade either Australia or Hawaii - and even if they could, the war still wouldn't be over. The war may drag on a bit longer, but it is ultimately a foregone conclusion. The Japanese can neither achieve victory nor force peace, so it doesn't matter how many ships they sink early in the war.

Solomwi,

I mostly agree with your analysis, with two minor caveats. First, what exactly could Japan have accomplished additionally, given their manpower and logistics constraints, that would have been meaningful? Secondly, keep in mind that while MacArthur might have gained additional influence, there is little chance he would have been named CinC-Pacific, or anything of the sort. Admiral King, and to a lesser extent, Admiral Leahy, would have been willing to resign before seeing that, and while General Marshall would support the Army up to a point, he would not have allowed such a scenario among the JCS over MacArthur's ego. Marshall and FDR would probably have allowed Mac additional leeway and power, but would have slapped him down over the total control that he wanted (similar to how the pair of them effectively slapped down Montgomery in the ETO).

Probably not much to your first question. Take Midway, which becomes one more outpost for (a) American target practice and (b) the eventual offensive force to bypass, and maybe do a better job of cutting off communications between the U.S. and Australia, but ultimately nothing game changing. Given their failure to capitalize on Pearl Harbor as it was, I'm not sure they'd have managed that much.

On MacArthur, I basically agree with you. I wasn't envisioning total control so much as his getting more of the naval resources he wanted committed to the Southern approach (I worded my first post confusingly; that part was meant just to show MacArthur's view of carriers' value). The Central v. Southern debate was hairy as it was. In this scenario, it might take a little longer for the USN to be capable of pushing into the Central Pacific, especially if MacArthur were able to siphon off what striking power was available to support his own operations before the Big Blue Fleet could come together. That was more my trying to find a way Wezil's departure point might make a difference than anything I'm convinced would have happened. In fact, bearing in mind the state of the carrier fleet after Coral Sea, the ability to make a Central Pacific approach might not have been delayed at all from reality.

Good point on the pilots.

[David Floyd]

Also, you still haven't addressed the point that you brought up Werner von Braun as relevant to a discussion about building an atomic bomb.

[David Floyd]

Given their failure to capitalize on Pearl Harbor as it was, I'm not sure they'd have managed that much.

What do you mean by this?

[Ben Kenobi]

Except that the Nazi leadership weren't willing to allocate resources to the project?

They did, until 1942, when they pulled funds away. After Barbarossa, which makes sense. Had they continued, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't have developed a bomb on their own without the Americans.

The German research facilities were significantly more advanced than the Russians, most of the nuclear scientists at the time, the pioneering ones, were all from the same set of German schools. Half the American team was trained there. So arguing that what applied to the Russians, applies to the Germans, isn't really relevant.

It isn't likely at all the Nazis could ever have produced a bomb

Sans Barbarossa, I suspect it would have happened, and perhaps sooner then '45 if Hitler didn't have to worry about an invasion of Russia, and could draw upon their natural resources.

Additionally, even getting it 1 year after the US is far, far too late, given the atomic bomb production schedule in 1945.

Only if America is willing to drop their supply of Nuclear bombs in order to force the surrender of Germany and Russia. Actually the German nuclear program was well underway before Los Alamos. So just as the Germans stopped, the Americans started.

[Ben Kenobi]

Also, you still haven't addressed the point that you brought up Werner von Braun as relevant to a discussion about building an atomic bomb.

Braun believed that the bomb could have been built and had significant pull with Hitler, hence the development of the V-1 and V-2. He believed that ultimately,the delivery system was more important. If he could have built an ICBM, that would have changed the strategic situation significantly.

You should still read Speer's book if you haven't. They've got two copies at Hampton Road. I'll trade you one for one of your books.

[giblets]

BK,



Doesn't matter. For perspective, Japan had a population very close to that of the US (ie, roughly 105 million vs. 130 million), and yet the war wasn't that close, given that the US won in the Pacific utilizing a fraction of it's total resources. What is going to make the difference is atomic weapons delivered from heavy bombers that are untouchable by SuperAxis aircraft, along with weaponized anthrax which the SuperAxis can't hope to match. Additionally, the US/UK/Commonwealth in this scenario retains much greater strategic flexibility due to overwhelming naval dominance - they can pick the where and when of any land engagements. Population simply is not going to come into play in this scenario, because at the absolute WORST CASE SCENARIO, the US uses the B-36 equipped with atomic weapons to depopulate Europe and the Soviet Union by the late 1940s, AND/OR Great Britain uses anthrax to depopulate Western Europe in the EARLY 1940s, a capability which they certainly had.

How would the Allies have been able to win against the super-axis without indiscriminate mass murder of everyone living in Europe?

[David Floyd]

The Nazi leadership determined in early 1942 that nuclear fission would not contribute to the end of the war. There is nothing that tells us this decision was a result of the Eastern Front, as at the time every major Nazi leader regarded the war as winnable. It's also inaccurate to say that the atomic program was defunded at the time - rather, it was broken up into around 10 different programs, where it was swallowed into the empire-building of the Nazi bureaucracy, and predictably, came to nothing. Again, empire building in the Nazi bureaucracy would not have been impacted by the presence or absence of the Eastern Front - it was the nature of the beast.

It was politicization that destroyed the Nazi atomic program, going hand in hand with the belief of the politicians that the bomb was either impossible or irrelevant. At one point, Herman Goering was in nominal charge of the program. Herman Goering was certainly no Leslie Groves. You simply cannot make the case that the destruction of Nazi atomic science due to Nazi politics was due to the Eastern Front. That is simply not believable.

[David Floyd]

Braun believed that the bomb could have been built and had significant pull with Hitler, hence the development of the V-1 and V-2. He believed that ultimately,the delivery system was more important. If he could have built an ICBM, that would have changed the strategic situation significantly.

The V-2 couldn't reliably hit a city-sized target with precision, and you are talking about ICBMs? Come on.

[David Floyd]

How would the Allies have been able to win against the super-axis without indiscriminate mass murder of everyone living in Europe?

That might have been what it came to, and I remind you, how would that have been different from the indiscriminate mass murder that would have resulted from Hitler and Stalin controlling Eurasia?

[Ben Kenobi]

And Apollo one killed everyone inside.

[Ben Kenobi]

Stop trolling the liberals, Floyd.

[David Floyd]

Not relevant. The Enola Gay went off without a hitch, as did Bock's Car.

[Ben Kenobi]

True, but unsuccessful execution of a good tactic is significantly different from the successful execution of a poor tactic. The V-2 is why the Americans were capable of landing on the moon in '69.

[David Floyd]

So, your point is that the Manhattan Project was an unsuccessful tactic? Or that Werner von Braun and the V-2 was the only contributing factor to the Apollo Program? Either way, your logic fails.

[Ben Kenobi]

My point is that he was correct that perfecting the delivery system was a significant requirement to the successful proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world.