(Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

jnier -> (6/28/2002 4:45:49 AM)

thantis,

I'm enjoying the debate but I have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion.

I agree that the most likely outcome a Japanese attack on Russia would be to simply prolong the war, rather than change the eventual outcome. The key words here are the "most likely" outcome. No one know for sure what the outcome of the Japanese attack on Russia would bring. It's possible (but not likely) that a Japanese attack on Russia *could* have led to the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. Not probable, but possible. Certainly a more probable outcome than in actual couse of events in 41-42; this strategy would have given the Axis a much better chance for winning the war, but they still would have probably eventually been defeated. The reality is that no one can say for sure what would have happened. All alternate history is guesswork. Educated guesswork, but still guesswork.

I was simply responding to your statement that a Japanese attack on Russian would benefit the Allies more than the Axis. You yourself said that the Japanese attack would prolong the war. How is this benefitting the Allies?

In any case, the most pivotal decision in WW2, IMHO, was the Japanese decision to attack the United States, rather than the Soviet Union. Whatever form this attack took (be it Pearl Harbor or whatever), bringing the US into the conflict was the single most pivotal event in the war. Regardless of Japan's motives for the attack on the US ("we need oil"), it was an unmitigated disaster, as Yamamoto himself suggested.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (6/28/2002 5:44:12 AM)

Alas, I think any comment that involves or revolves around "brought the US into the war" as "pivotal", presupposes that there was any chance that the US would NOT enter the war.

The idea that the US "might not" enter the war is perhaps the height of lunacy.

It is nice to ponder what ifs, but, the US at the time was hardly a nation willing to sit idly by and do nothing.

Looking at the geography of the region, and considering the forces involved, a Japanese attack on Russia would likely only have one special significance.

That the Russians could hold off the Japanese, was likely evidenced by the Japanese reluctance to attack them in the first place.
If Japan had attacked Russia, in the short term, the Russians would have lost some real estate. But then again, that real estate was hardly vital to Russian long term survival.
The Japanese would more likely have simply occupied the Russians just long enough to keep them occupied just long enough to upset the time table of events that actually occurred.
The Germans would likely not have enjoyed any more success than they in fact did.
The Russian responses might have suffered a marginal delay effectively.

In the end, it might have slowed their actions just long enough to see them not grab quite as much of Europe as they did.

Final analysis by me....

A Japanese attack might have kept Germany from being a nation divided as it was. Any more speculations than that though, assume a great many more ripples were created than anyone can ever imagine without wild swings of chance.



jnier -> (6/28/2002 10:25:11 AM)

I hate to re-hash an old topic that's been discussed on previous forums about this, but here goes. Forgive the rant.

How would the US have entered the war if the the Japanese had not attacked the United States? I agree that at some point in time, the US would have come into conflict with the axis. But when? With the benefit of hindsight, its easy to forget the political reality of the United State in 1941 - [B]most Americans were not in favor of entering the war.[/B] This reality is the most important consideration that determined when the US entered the war if there is no Japanese attack. Remember only Congress can declare war - not Roosevelt (this is before the Cold War gave the president broad authority to make war).

I can think of two likely possibilities that could change American public opinion and therefore the poltical climate, resulting in a US entry into the war. First, a military action by the Axis against the United States, like Pearl Harbor. Second, a series of smaller infringements upon US interests and the US eventually enters the war similar to the manner in which it entered WW1 - the US public eventually gets fed up with the axis and public opinion finally tips in favor of war. And remember how much it took to get the US to enter WW1 (when the US was not directly attacked). Only after the Lusitania, the Zimmerman Telegram, and Unrestricted Submarine Warfare does the US intervene.

I am suggesting the following: What if the Axis never takes military action against the United States and the US enters the war via the second scenario I've described. How long would this take? 6 Months? A Year? More then a year? Nobody knows - not the historians and certainly not us.

Delaying the US entry into the war, at the very least, substantially prolongs the war, even if we assume that the Soviets can survive a two front war (which is not a certainty). I can't think of another event that has the potential to prolong the war to a greater extent than the Axis failing to attack the US.

A close second for most pivotal event, is Hitler's decision to attack the Soviet Union. Regardless of Hitler's motivation, an attack that was an initial tactical success that turns into a political and strategic disaster (ironically, similar to Pearl Harbor in that respect).



jnier -> (6/28/2002 10:53:44 AM)

Addendum to rant:

Percentage of Americans opposed to entering war (Gallup Poll):
1939: 96%
1941: 80%

Seldom in American history were the people as united in their views as they were about staying out of war in Europe.

Question: How does public opinion change without a deliberate Axis attack?

If the Axis had the foresight to see the folly of attacking the US the war would have been quite different.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (6/28/2002 12:14:29 PM)

All good points.

As was mentioned the Japanese were somewhat against the wall for resources.
Pearl Harbour was part of a whole series of military actions though, and not an isolated action.
The attacks on the Phillippines and Wake as well as so many other locations would have caused I think a decent incentive to join the war. Of course the affrontery of attacking paradise (Hawaii) sure freaked out the Americans.

The Japanese attacked Pearl reluctantly, but they only did it to buy some time. Their plans were done knowing the US would surely respond. Getting the carriers was the primary goal, although the screwed up big time not getting the oil.
A declaration of war with no naval oil to be had would have been a hoolow threat to the japanese for about a year.
The Japanese would have made precious good use out of that year.

The US entering the war was already in the bag when Japan pushed the US to embargo them. And the Japanese offensive would have forced the US to respond even without Pearl Harbour. And maybe even easier if their navy had not been pounded.
Then again the US learned carrier tactics because that was all they had to work with. It is curious to ponder what the US style would have been if they had learned carrier penache a year later.



Fallschirmjager -> (6/28/2002 1:10:47 PM)

[QUOTE]As for no US involvement, the reason for Pearl Harbor was the oil & scrap embargo - which if left in place, would have resulted in a crippled Japanese military by 1943 anyway. [/QUOTE]


A very good point.
What Americans like to forget is that the Japenese [I]had[/I] to go to war.
They simply didnt have enough resources to try an defend themselves in the modern world.
You dont really want to depend on someone else to supply your weapons for national defense.

The Cold War changed all that.
You could do what you wanted and as long as you had the soviets or americans backing you up.



thantis -> (6/28/2002 6:49:30 PM)

A hypothetical attack by the Japanese against the Russians in the Far East in late 1941 (as the Germans are closing on Moscow) or early 1942 (when the Siberian Divisions have been used for the winter counteroffensive) has to be predicated on certain events happening in the rest of the world:

1) If the Japanese decide to pursue a "Northern Strategy" from the beginning (mid-1930's) Japan would concentrate more in aircraft, artillery, and tank production, with a commensurate decrease in naval spending (fewer carriers, fewer battleships, etc). This would still leave the Japanese extremely vulnerable to Western Trade Embargoes resulting from their war in China - which would only intensify if Japan invades Russia.

End Result - crippled Japanese military and economy by 1943 or early 1944 at the latest.

2) Japan plans to invade Russia (but historical production of armaments), but also realizes that they need the "Southern Resource Area." They plan to use their navy to seize this region (Indoneasia, Java, Southeast Asia) and going to war against Britain & the Netherlands, but avoiding war with the United States.

This leaves the United States with a strong position in the Philippines, and when the US enters the war in 1942 (say due to some incident - like torpedoing a US destroyer escorting arms shipments to Australia) the US is able to interdict Japanese convoys bring fuel and natural resources back to Japan.

End Result - Japan surrenders in 1944 as the Red Army crushes their garrisons in Manchuria & US bombers flatten Japanese cities from heavily fortified bases on Guam & Saipan. Their war economy collapses due to the lack of supplies & US troops invade Taiwan from their bases in the Philippines.

3) Japan invades Russia in December 1941 as a result of German victories in the East, and in the belief that the Soviet Union is on its last legs, but the historical timeline elsewhere remains intact (Pearl Harbor, Philippines, etc).

End Result - the Japanese seize quite a bit of territory, but overextended supply lines, and the strain of the war against the United States in the Pacific result in a serious Red Army counteroffensive in late 1942 (with the Operation Mars reserves) restoring the pre-war border, followed up with limited Russian offensives in 1943 to tie down additional Japanese forces in Manchuria.

US forces find fewer Japanese troops in the South Pacific (who are tied down in China & Siberia, rather than Guadalcanal, Rabaul, & New Guinea). Operations move forward much faster than historically - with US troops landing back in the Philippines in 1943, and major bombing campaigns launched against the home islands in 1944.

The war in Europe drags on through 1943 (Kursk is much bloodier & the Germans win a tactical victory - no 5th GTA or Steppes Front reserves). US & British forces still drive the Germans out of North Africa & Sicily, Italy surrenders as it did historically.

The Russian 1943 Winter Offensive is less successful than historically, but still manages to put a large dent in AGS. Additional German forces are available to go against the Allies in Normandy, but by August 1944 US & British troops break out and reconquer France.

The Eastern Front drags on, with a full Soviet Counteroffensive in 1944 (with forces released from the successful Manchurian Front) that smashes AGC & pushes the front lines back towards the Polish border.

The war continues into late 1945, with Germany finally surrendering after the Atomic Bomb is used on Berlin, Dresden, & Munich.

We suppose a shorter war in the Pacific leads to a longer war in Europe - but the end result is still the same.



jnier -> (7/1/2002 10:36:59 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fallschirmjager
[B]
A very good point.
What Americans like to forget is that the Japenese [I]had[/I] to go to war.
They simply didnt have enough resources to try an defend themselves in the modern world.
You dont really want to depend on someone else to supply your weapons for national defense. [/B][/QUOTE]

The statement "the Japanses had to go to war" is absurd and it wrongly implies that the US *forced* Japan into war. The actions taken by the Japanese - not the US - lead to the neccessity of an oil embargo against Japan. The US, correctly IMHO, attempted to thwart Japansese aggression in the Far East with the embargo. Was the US embargo provocative? Yes it was, but it was justified given Japanese actions and intentions.

Japan had a clear alternative to war - stop slaughtering & subjagating the rest of the Far East (and stop threatening US interests) and you can have all the oil you want.

As far the oil being neccessary to for Japan to defend itself. Who was going to invade Japan in the 1940's? Nobody. The oil that the Japansese needed for "self-defense" in actuality was neccessary to continue a war of pure aggression and expansion. Many other nations routinely trade with hostile foreign nations to obtain strategic natural resouces without feeling the neccesity to take the resources by force. Examples: The United States is currently importing oil from just about anyone who will sell it, including Iraq. The US imported oil from the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War.

I'll grant you that the US leadership was fully aware that the embargo could possibly lead to a full scale war, especially given the political climate in Japan - the hawks in Japan were hell bent on expansion. But the US embargo rightfully attempted to force Japan to reverse this course.

So the US really gave the Japanese leadership options - and Japan chose unwisely. With the benefit of hindsight, it was clearly a disastrous, and yes, pivotal decision - but not one that Japan was forced into by the US.



msaario -> (7/1/2002 1:25:45 PM)

The decision to go to war was a disastrous one for the contemporary (1940s) people, but I doubt the Japanese of today would complain about it... Would they be as prosperous otherwise? The rebuilding efforts after the war were a real catalyst for the economy, as in Germany.

The occupation changed both the economy and the mindset of the population as they were forced to learn the "western" way of conducting business & politics. Sometimes it takes pain to grow.

--Mikko



thantis -> (7/1/2002 6:39:44 PM)

In the minds of the Japanese military leaders in 1940 - 1941, they "had" to go to war......Of course, this reason is predicated on their ability to continue to wage a war of aggression against China (and plan to invade Southeast Asia, Phillipines, Siberia, etc).

The US Embargo of Japan (if allowed to continue) would have either forced Japan out of China - which would have led to a bloody revolt by the military against the civilian government - again probably leading to war, or again, forced those military leaders (and the civilian leadership) to sanction war against the United States and Great Britain (not to mention the Netherlands) as they did historically.

In a fully rational world, the Japanese could have seen the disasterous consequences of their actions - but the Japanese were not rational. They saw a window of opportunity and decided to take it. Its unfortunate, but due to their limited vision at the time - their psychology left them no other way out than risk war and hope for the best.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (7/1/2002 6:45:14 PM)

History is full of "bad" guys and "good" guys.

In the 1940's it was clearly the Japanese and the German & Italian mob. that were the "bad" guys.

So it is inevitable that any action taken by them is invariably seen as agressive and inherently evil.

But just to put a different slant on our out of hand condemnation of Japans ambitions in China. China was just a place to go and plunder to the end result of building an empire. The people of China were no more important to the then Japanese concience as were any people of any previous conquering power.

Every time I dwell on history it is not long before I remember that both Canada and The USA are conquered lands that were taken from original peoples that are currently not likely to see us (the USA or Canada) as "noble" people.
Equally so, The Spanish did the same thing to most of South and Central America.

The native peoples were backwards barbarians that were below our consideration and subject to slaughter by our founding fathers (that is not the way I wish it to be, I wrote that in the context of how it was seen back then remember).

Canada and the US are still fairly young nations. It is therefore not surprising that some of the world's older nations bristle at our superior moral postering sometimes.

Did Japan "have" to go to war. No of course not.
But they were ruled by a mainly military mentality and conquest was the mindset of the time. They had dreams of a Greater Co Prosperity Sphere. They truely thought uniting the region under one flag was a good idea. Not good as in the moral sense of the word, merely good as in, it made good economic sense to Japan.
That and the Japanese culture was something of a shock to the average westerner. They placed a different value on human existence then.

The war with Japan was inevitable, mainly due to our refusing to let them "do it their way". I won't say we had noble reasons for stopping them. It was more our way of life vs theirs.
One person's freedom is often another's idea of subjugation.



rosary -> (7/2/2002 2:07:53 AM)

The propaganda battle. Without it the governments would not have had the populations support and no war at all.

Unfortunately, the propaganda machines were in excellent working order and combined with radio they were truly effective.

I have a book on WWII propaganda and it shows a british poster of German soldiers bayoneting babies and/or nuns. Its ridiculous but it worked.
My 79 year old father still wishes he could have been in the war. While a friend of mine who fought for Germany remembers being in auditoriums for radio speeches from der Fuerher and everyone standing and cheering. Later he had several fingers shot off on the Russian front and recalls that the Soviet Tanks scared the hell out of him but thats another story.



Admiral DadMan -> (7/2/2002 9:27:07 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]My own knowledge is a bit shaky but I think Ultra was the code name for the German enigma machine based intercepts.

But yes they had to be danged careful how they used the knowledge lest they blow the secret that they had that option at all. [/B][/QUOTE]Some background:

The Japanese Diplomatic code was known as, "Purple". The output from the decoding machine was known as, "Magic".

Ultra (short for Ultra Secret) were messages about major IJN fleet movements, garnered from d/f'd radio traffic and call signs as well as IJN's code, JN-25.

Here we're talking about pivotal, "pertaining to a turning point; as, the pivotal opportunity of a career; the pivotal position in a battle."

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary,

i.e. the battle or war is headed in one direction, but an event or series of events turns it in a different direction.

Using this logic, one could argue that, at least in the Pacific, the Doolittle raid could be argued as a turning point. It acheived little direct damage, but it did rattle the Japanese and had the effect of spurring the timetable for Operation AI (Midway).

Had the IJN not pushed the time table up, they would have had plenty of time to train and fit out for the operation, and all 6 Fleet CVs would have been available. Granted, the USN would likely have had 4 Fleet CVs to counter with, but the battle still could have gone very differently. The IJN changed their codes at the end of May42, so it was a good thing the US had gotten wind of the operation.



showboat1 -> Time to open myself to ridicule (7/18/2002 6:04:58 AM)

Guadalcanal was the most pivotal battle of World War II in the Pacific. Lets remember that even after Midway the Japanese still had advantages in experienced pilots, better planes and weapons, and STILL had more carriers than the USN. The stubbornness of the 1st Marines against repeated attacks turned the tide. The USMC and USN took the initiative away from the Imperial GHQ. Many of Japans best pilots, sailors, and soldiers were wasted in futile attempts to dislodge the Marines. The almost total lack of cooperation between IJN and IJA forces was exposed and exploited. The Canal was a TOTAL disaster for Japan despite many naval victories in the campaign.

Other topics:
1) Hitler didn't want to conquer Britain. He wanted the British to turn to his political viewpoint. Sealion was a bluff to force the British to the negotiating table and THEN Hitler wanted to attack the Soviets. Hitler hated and feared Communism more than anything and even at the end lived under the delusion that the Allies would join with him against the Communist Soviets.

2) The US dropping the bomb was a political decision based on ending the war quickly and with minimal AMERICAN casualties. They didn't care how many Japanese they killed.

3) If Germany had not attacked Soviet Union but had declared war on US the result would still have been US victory. The US air war STILL would have crippled German industry and the US STILL would have developed the A bomb first as the Germans were going down a "blind alley" in their approach. Would the US have used the bomb against te Germans? YES, if it would have been perceived as "politically" necessary.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (7/18/2002 8:31:40 AM)

Guadalcanal is a tricky one.

It was definitely the "turning point" because it began the series of actions that the allies in the Pacific used to tighten their grip on Japan ever increasingly.

Not sure on pivotal though.

It is inevitable the process would have to begin somewhere, and that somewhere was there.

But the losses at Coral Sea while maybe cosmetically in the Japanese favour spelled their doom when they stopped trying for Australia. If they had aggressively kept onward they would likely have met the Allies in northern Australia. Not sure how that would have gone though. Japan didn't have endless streams of troops for occupying everywhere either.

Thats why Coroal Sea was pivotal while Gaudalcanal was more a turning point. It marked the beginning of the end.

Maybe the words pivotal and turning point are being used differently here in some posts is all.



Chiteng -> Khalkin Gol (7/18/2002 9:15:41 PM)

Khalkin Gol (if that counts for WW2)

Up to that time the Japs had felt that the USSR was no better
than Czarist Russia. They had beat Russia at Mukden(not easily)
but they won.

Khalkin Gol terrified them. They realized that they could not handle the Bear. After that all thought of expansion was directed
south.

They are still afraid.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (7/18/2002 10:07:37 PM)

Don't really know much about that battle but I should likely study up on it.

I agree though, the Japanese gave the Russians a wide berth during the bulk of the war. And it would have been a greatly different war if they had not had that aversion to dealing with the Russians.

Just how much it would have influenced their decisions is not an easy thing to measure though. They needed resources, and those resources were basically south.

A conflict with Russia while dealing basically with the US primarily would have been as bad a choice as it was for the Germans fighting the Russians and the Western allies at the same time.
To many fronts and not enough troops.



Bernard -> battle of the bulge (7/22/2002 6:35:42 PM)

did anyone mention bastogne ?

Pivotal in the sense that it helped speed up the war.
Berlin was also pivotal : it closed the war.
Dunkirk : it saved the UK forces and enabled them to carry on.
Leningrad : it tied up lots of troops and blocked advance.

we could have a very long list.
i'd say most of the battles that are cited (maybe dunkirk was really pivotal) were important but not so. they could have been fought again or another outcome would have led to another battle (like bastogne : a defeat of allied troops would simply caused a setback. only itler thought it could have changed the war). same for Canal : even if US troops had been destroyed, we "only" talk about 1 or 2 divisions. a cause a drastic change in the war ?)

But definitely Midway is a pivotal : it changed everything overnight.

jsut another comment on PH : it is well known that Roosevelt was only looking for a way to get into war but without getting thrown out of presidency).
look at course of actions he took before PH :
- send troops in Iceland to relieve some UK troops;
- assure defense of convoys with US destroyers;
- lend lease agreeement : he transofrmed USA in an arsenal for UK and Russia;
- gift of 50 destroyers to UK;
- began rebuilding aviation and troops;
- provoked Japan into war;
etc.

I won't even mention that he is supposed to have known for the attack on PH and that he therefore sent CV's away. Of course not alerting PH was a cock-up, but not his.

best regards.



CCB -> (7/22/2002 7:11:40 PM)

Most pivotal battle?

Britain - Battle of Britain - won (they're still in the war!)

Germany - Barbarossa - loss (they're only chance to truly defeat the Soviet Union)

Japan - Midway - loss (first naval defeat in over 300 years - the chance to destroy the American fleet is lost for good)

US - Guadalcanal/Solomons - won (first major offensive victory)

Soviet Union - Stalingrad/Saturn - won (first well coordinated large scale operation)



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (7/22/2002 7:45:08 PM)

No I am NOT superior in knowledge but you guys need to get a smaller paint brush:)

Yes Battle of Britain was a very important battle, but the part of it that was pivotal was Hitler's sudden petulant shift to bombing London following the errant bombing that inspired the predictable British response over Berlin.
The moment his emotions took over and they stopped pounding the airfields it was all just a matter of time. Before he started hitting London the RAF was about to roll over. Those gallant few would have been remembered differently if Hitler had continued what he was doing.
So you can't just call the Battle of Britain pivotal out of hand, it was only that one element of the battle that was pivotal. The RAF was destined to meet the Luftwaffe in the skies over Britain. Something that WILL happen regardless can't be pivotal.

Pivotal is to me something intrinsically minor that might NOT have happened, and yet had a massive impact when it did.
I think the British would have lost the battle if not for an errant bomber.

Same with Midway. The Americans were doomed to lock horns eventually with a superior naval force.
But the pivotal element of the battle was the code breaking effort. If those US carriers had not been warned and taken up a position reasonably favourable, their chances would not have existed.
As if goes, it was a tragedy that so many US airmen were lost dragging all of the CAP down just as a batch of SBDs came on the scene. Hitting 3 carriers butt naked covered in planes is not something you plan for (even with the code breaking this was incredible fortune). It wasn't the entire battle that was pivotal though.

I disagree that Bastogne was pivotal. Sure it makes a grand story of heroism, but Hitler's war was as done as dinner even before that offensive.
He only accomplished one thing bank rolling his future on that battle. He made it possible for the Russians to get a grip on Germany.
All that armour might have been just the edge he needed to keep the Russians out while letting the allies in (assumng that would have ever occurred to him).
But then Hitler by that time was not thinking to brilliantly. He actually dreamed of actually winning some sort of mangled notion of victory against the west and actually thought the west would then join up against the Russians.
A good example of not fully understanding the political mentality of the west of the time (where a deal is a deal even if it is with the Russians).
Attacking with inadequate fuel and assuming the weather would cooperate, was just plain stupid. There is nothing pivotal about surviving something stupid. The Battle of the Bulge delayed the allies, but in no way ever had any real chance of doing anything really useful for Germany.

From all I have read, Hitler could have won in Russia.
He wasn't able to attack any sooner thanks to the Balkans, and odds are conditions would have been the same without the Balkans.
What destroyed his chances in Russia was his early war victories, and his delusional belief he was more than an unskilled corporal.
His Generals could have won that battle if he had said, go take out Russia get back to me when it's done.
Hitler lost that war all by himself. He was an able politician, but a worthless military leader.
The only pivotal thing about Barbarossa was Hitler's interference.

The Battle of Berlin was like the dropping of the Atom bomb. It was done for reasons that seemed right at the time.
Pivotal...no. Germany was toast. Trashing Berlin, and the Russians losing the numbers of men they did to do it, was pointless. But that wasn't on the Russians minds at the time I suppose. Still it wasn't a pivotal battle. It was just Russia trashing the German capital.



Chiteng -> wow (7/22/2002 8:48:09 PM)

With regards to Hitler:

If he had done as you asked, they quite likely would never have invaded. The GGS was extreemly hesitant to fight. None of them were what we call a prime-mover.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (7/22/2002 10:41:36 PM)

Well yes the General staff were not to thrilled with a lot of Hitlers policies. Most don't realise they were trying to get him killed on several occasions even before war broke out.

Buuuuut, if he had told them look we are attacking, and not insisted on telling them how to do their job, it would have been greatly different.
The diversion south during the initial invasion was Hitler's meddling, and Stalingrad would not have happened if Hitler hadn't been sticking his untrained nose into the battlefield.



GYBLIN -> (7/23/2002 10:14:06 PM)

Lets look a the "big picture".If not for success at normandy wouldnt germany just regroup and finish up russia in three or four months.Without the pressure of defending the third reich could have put some serious smackdown on britain too.I think overall Normandy,midway a close second.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (7/23/2002 11:31:55 PM)

Gyblin you need to explain why Normandy was great though.

Come on dude a claim is just a waste of post space unless you expand upon it:)

Lets hear your points man. Prove your case eh:)

A key aspect of the Normandy landing to me, was how Patton had gotten thrown in the doghouse earlier, and as such wasn't the star player and as such had no influence over the landing.

He wanted to land at Calais, a choice that would have been a BAD one.

The Allies had to land somewhere and had to eventually land as well. It was more a matter of when.
I have seen alot of studies of what 43 might have looked like.
45 of course would have been pointless, Russia would have likely been already have done with Germany by then.

As for tying down important units, well most are unaware but France was a place Germany sent it's units to rest from having the tar beat out of them by the Russians.

Sadly it doesn't impress vets much, but we went ashore against a foe with no sea power and air power that wasn't worth comment. His units were all second rate on the coast on the actual day, and were mostly static.
What good units were present, operated under complete and total allied air attack. The only edge Germany had was the bocage.



GYBLIN -> (7/24/2002 6:36:55 AM)

No need to explain my man.Just look at a what if scenario.What if the normandy assault failed and the germans succefuly broke all of our forces there.Probably would have looked like another dunkirk with us trying to get survors out.Then we would have the political fallout of the masive human loss.Im not sure what would have happen but it wouldnt have been pretty.Im not sure how easy it would be to tell the american people how all there sons were kiled in the first assault and that we needed more for a second.PLus the MORALE boost for germany would be incredible.Pivatol-hell yes.No beach,no land campaign.End explanation.:D



msaario -> ...No airpower?? (7/24/2002 2:55:17 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]a foe with no sea power and air power[/B][/QUOTE]

What! No airpower?!

They had two fighters over the beaches making one strafing run on D-Day! Isn't that some serious airpower?:D :D :D

--Mikko



Raverdave -> (7/24/2002 3:38:57 PM)

Not so much a battle as a raid, but the Doolittle raid on Japan in the B-25s. It caused Japan to divert two carriers from the South Pacific to cover the operations in the Aleutians, which was a direct response to the Doolittle raid....I don't think that the Japanese really did have any idea where the raid came from, but the Alueutians seemed the best bet at the time. The flow-on effect in the south pacific was that Japan was short the [I]Junyo[/I] and the [I]Ryujo[/I], these two carriers would have made all the differance at Midway.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (7/24/2002 7:06:34 PM)

Good point Raverdave.

To follow up the comment about "if Normandy had failed", good point. Of course it was possible.
The allies went ashore at Omaha and we all know the pounding that beach took the first few hours. If Omaha had crumbled the whole beachhead would be in a good piece of trouble.

The 12th SS could have sat in the gap on D+2 and been quite a boulder to dislodge. They gave us Canadians quite a time even still with the historical outcome.

The most gauling thing about a failed landing though, would have been that 3 nations with fresh troops, complete air cover, and beaches that had no naval opposition worth comment, could have failed.
It would have been a very dark day indeed. Not entirely sure what the Germans would have done with it. They wouldn't magically generate formations just because the Allies assault was crushed.

Long term result would most likely have been a war that lasted perhaps 2 more years, with an iron curtain that was right to the borders of Italy and France.
I say this because, Russia would not have stopped pounding Germany. And odds are the Allies would have had to settle for coming onto the continent through Italy and southern France.

Talk of another landing won't sell. They went ashore in June because that's when the tides told them they would. Landing elsewhere would not suddenly become viable out of necessity.

The Germans would still have the armour they produced for the winter offensive of the Bulge. But that armour was only made famous for the way they squandered it. It would not get much press fighting the Russians who had a great deal more. The Russians would likely just not waste so much material trashing Berlin. It would be spent trashing German armour.



CCB -> (7/24/2002 8:27:43 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raverdave
[B]Not so much a battle as a raid, but the Doolittle raid on Japan in the B-25s. It caused Japan to divert two carriers from the South Pacific to cover the operations in the Aleutians, which was a direct response to the Doolittle raid....I don't think that the Japanese really did have any idea where the raid came from, but the Alueutians seemed the best bet at the time. The flow-on effect in the south pacific was that Japan was short the [I]Junyo[/I] and the [I]Ryujo[/I], these two carriers would have made all the differance at Midway. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hmmmmm. Its my understanding that the Alueutians 'adventure' (Operation AO) was as much a diversion to draw the US Navy out as was the planned invasion of Midway itself.

Every book I've read states that the Japanese knew the B-25s came from carriers. Maybe not right away, but soon afterward, hence the Midway plan (Operation MO) to destroy the US carriers and remaining fleet.

The lack of two carriers at Midway was due to the Battle of the Coral Sea in which the air crews of the Zuikaku and Shokaku were so badly mauled the two carriers were unable to participate in the Midway plan. Also the light carrier Shoho was sunk.



davewolf -> Re: ...No airpower?? (7/24/2002 8:56:36 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by msaario
[B]They had two fighters over the beaches making one strafing run on D-Day! Isn't that some serious airpower?[/B][/QUOTE]
Could have been an almost complete Jagdgeschwader in 1945...



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.609375