Originally posted by no1marauder I see no reason to believe that Britain would have fallen; they survived the most serious crisis in 1940 without American help. If Germany follows the same strategy, they eventually lose to the USSR though it would have taken longer.
The Japanese certainly have an easier time in the Pacific, but the majority of their ground troops were ...[text shortened]... be cut with them leaving them in control of Southeast Asia; then they get to have a Vietnam War.
I don't believe that Britain could have held out for very long without American aid under the lend-lease programme. I think we'd probably have ended up signing a conditional surrender by mid 1943. And without the threat of allied invasion from the West, an awful lot of extra resources are made available to the Eastern Front. Plus potential aid from the Japanese Empire. Plus, without the Americans to worry about, the Japanese would probably have joined with the German attacks against Russia in order to secure oil supplies had they not already done so elsewhere in Asia.
Originally posted by utherpendragon Britain would have surely fallen,eventually. As far as Japan getting to have a Vietnam War I think they would handled it much more efficiently than we did. No protesters,no "rules of engagement",and a lot of enthusiasm!
If Britain didn't fall in 1940, what makes you think they would have fallen when 80% of Axis ground troops were engaged in the East? If the USSR holds, Britain survives.
The result of a Japanese Vietnam War would have been the same as ours; they had all kind of problems with guerrilla movements in China and Philippines despite the brutality of their repression.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat I don't believe that Britain could have held out for very long without American aid under the lend-lease programme. I think we'd probably have ended up signing a conditional surrender by mid 1943. And without the threat of allied invasion from the West, an awful lot of extra resources are made available to the Eastern Front. Plus potential aid fro ...[text shortened]... against Russia in order to secure oil supplies had they not already done so elsewhere in Asia.
I think you vastly overrate the importance of Lend-Lease. Churchill was not going to surrender absent a successful German invasion of the Home Islands (and maybe not even then) that is impossible once the Germans get engaged in the East.
The Japanese were terrified of the Soviet Army after getting severely mauled in two engagements on the Sino-Soviet border in the late 30's. Moreover, they would have no reason to desire the small amount of oil in Siberia when they would have had possession of the rich fields of Indonesia. The Japanese wouldn't be interested in increasing Nazi power; they were not naive.
Originally posted by no1marauder If Britain didn't fall in 1940, what makes you think they would have fallen when 80% of Axis ground troops were engaged in the East? If the USSR holds, Britain survives.
Britain didn't fall in 1940 in large part because US lend lease support and more importantly, the prospect of much, much more US support down the road.
Britain's choices were not total capitulation vs. fighting on (like, say, the USSR in 1941). The British could have made a separate peace and kept complete autonomy and even most of their empire. Hitler did not set out to occupy the British Isles. He thought the British would cooperate with his new order in Europe.
Without the prospect of US aid, it's very possible that they would have deposed Churchill and made a separate peace, especially before Barbarossa. The British did not hang in there in 1940 because they were counting on Russian help. Quite the contrary, the Russians were allied with Hitler at that time.
Originally posted by no1marauder If Britain didn't fall in 1940, what makes you think they would have fallen when 80% of Axis ground troops were engaged in the East? If the USSR holds, Britain survives.
The result of a Japanese Vietnam War would have been the same as ours; they had all kind of problems with guerrilla movements in China and Philippines despite the brutality of their repression.
the result of our vietnam was all political. we were not trying to conquer as The Japs would have done.
the u.s. with one hand tied behind their back kicked the NVA's ass. With out war being declared. There is a certain way a Army has to conduct itself under those circumstances. And its very limiting. Japan would not have had that problem. They would of went in there w/"no holds barred"as we should have done.
Originally posted by no1marauder I think you vastly overrate the importance of Lend-Lease. Churchill was not going to surrender absent a successful German invasion of the Home Islands (and maybe not even then) that is impossible once the Germans get engaged in the East.
The Japanese were terrified of the Soviet Army after getting severely mauled in two engagements on t ...[text shortened]... Indonesia. The Japanese wouldn't be interested in increasing Nazi power; they were not naive.
Following the defeats by the Soviets in the '30s, do you not think that the Japanese would have been keen to join with Germany against them? Allowing the Nazis with plenty of oil and no Western front to speak of, that puts the Soviets between an axis vice. I maintain that Britain is rendered irrelevant if not surrendered without American aid.
Originally posted by sh76 Britain didn't fall in 1940 in large part because US lend lease support and more importantly, the prospect of much, much more US support down the road.
Britain's choices were not total capitulation vs. fighting on (like, say, the USSR in 1941). The British could have made a separate peace and kept complete autonomy and even most of their empire. Hitler did n ...[text shortened]... nting on Russian help. Quite the contrary, the Russians were allied with Hitler at that time.
What Lend-Lease do you think Britain was getting in 1940?
I see no mechanism by which Great Britain accedes to a separate peace before June 1941 that doesn't involve German withdrawal from France and the Low Countries. Churchill was put in because of the debacle in France; to suppose he would have been deposed after the success of the Battle of Britain in favor of someone who would negotiate, in effect, a surrender is a fantasy.
British foreign policy for oh, 500 years, was not to allow a dominate power on the Continent. They were willing to fight Napoleon for more than 15 years; Hitler and the Nazis were surely more noxious to them. Churchill like everybody else knew that the "alliance" between the Germans and the Soviets would never last.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung No, I mean the Americas do not exist. The Atlantic IS the Pacific.
If there had been no Americas, where would Europe have exported its surplus populations from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century? Were there other large territories (Africa, say?) that could have been settled with equal ease given European technological superiority to native populations? If so, then there might well be an equivalent to the United States elsewhere, that would have played a similar role in World War II.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat Following the defeats by the Soviets in the '30s, do you not think that the Japanese would have been keen to join with Germany against them? Allowing the Nazis with plenty of oil and no Western front to speak of, that puts the Soviets between an axis vice. I maintain that Britain is rendered irrelevant if not surrendered without American aid.
They weren't, were they? Despite German urgings they resisted going to war with the Soviets even when the Germans had the upper hand. There really wasn't anything in Siberia that they needed or wanted and Imperial Japan didn't just do favors.
Originally posted by Teinosuke If there had been no Americas, where would Europe have exported its surplus populations from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century? Were there other large territories (Africa, say?) that could have been settled with equal ease given European technological superiority to native populations? If so, then there might well be an equivalent to the United States elsewhere, that would have played a similar role in World War II.
Originally posted by no1marauder What Lend-Lease do you think Britain was getting in 1940?
I see no mechanism by which Great Britain accedes to a separate peace before June 1941 that doesn't involve German withdrawal from France and the Low Countries. Churchill was put in because of the debacle in France; to suppose he would have been deposed after the success of th ...[text shortened]... everybody else knew that the "alliance" between the Germans and the Soviets would never last.
Well, I know it was in the billions. And that doesn't include hundreds of millions of pounds worth of war materials which wouldn't have been available without US industry, at least fifty destroyers, hundreds of cargo ships of food and raw materials etc. Instead of the US fleet and incoming aid convoys, there would be hostile Japanese naval forces supporting the Kriegsmarine in the the Atlantic. I just can't see Britain holding out under these circumstances.
Originally posted by no1marauder They weren't, were they? Despite German urgings they resisted going to war with the Soviets even when the Germans had the upper hand. There really wasn't anything in Siberia that they needed or wanted and Imperial Japan didn't just do favors.
They resisted because to them, the real enemy was the US. Take them out of the equation and why wouldn't they take on the Russian Bear?
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Rwingett and Avalanche, thanks for kindly presenting two dramatically opposing viewpoints, and thanks Uther for the requisite trolling. All great threads have trolls.
Burros are excellent swimmers. You won't be talking smack when the Mexican Marines arrive on their amphibious burro cavalry!
Aren't there already burros in Spain?
The Mexican Marines are an urban legend! They never found a way to keep the snorkels on. If they had they would have surely been employed crossing the Rio Grand!
Check Snopes!
Originally posted by avalanchethecat They resisted because to them, the real enemy was the US. Take them out of the equation and why wouldn't they take on the Russian Bear?
Here's a thought; try actually reading my posts.
They wouldn't because as I have already mentioned:
A) Most of their land forces were tied up in China;
B) The Soviet armies in the East had already smashed them twice;
C) There is nothing of any value to the Japanese in Siberia;
D) There are far more tempting targets to the South;
E) They had no reason to do the Nazis favors;
I can think of other reasons as well, but perhaps you should address some of those.
A Different WWII...
24 Oct '10 20:53
Back to Top