Alternate History.

[TarJak]

Hey it's my alternative history. Get your own. :O:

[Admiral Halsey]

Thanks for reintroducing the question Halsey! More takers this time.
No problem at all.
I have two new task to discuss, when you're finish discussing the last one.

Markus

Go ahead. I'm still recharging my AH batteries.

[mapuc]

^ Ok.

Both are about USA.

1. What if the south won the civil war? What kind of USA would we see today and what kind of engagement would we see in WWI and WWI and other wars after the civil war.

2. What if USA became a German speaking country instead of an English talking country. How would USA engagement in WWI and WWII be?

Markus

[Admiral Halsey]

I have to think about the second one but for the first one I suggest reading the Southern Victory Series by Harry Turtledove.

[mapuc]

I have to think about the second one but for the first one I suggest reading the Southern Victory Series by Harry Turtledove.

Made a search on his name and the title. I found this

http://www.audioeditions.com/audiobook-author.aspx?authorfull=harry+turtledove

but no Southern Victory though

Markus

[Oberon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Victory_Series

[Admiral Halsey]

Got a new one for you guys. What if Napoleon had won at Waterloo?

[Jimbuna]

The combined might of Prussia, Austria and Russia would have taken a few less than a year to bring France to heel.

[Dread Knot]

The combined might of Prussia, Austria and Russia would have taken a few less than a year to bring France to heel.

Exactly.


By 1815, there were no more opportunities for Napoleon to play divide and conquer. Napoleon has essentially thumbed his nose at the Allies' generosity (sending him to Elba and allowing him to live there semi-autonomously) and has broken nearly every agreement he ever made with any of the Allies. No nation would side with him or declare neutrality. The Russians and Austrians were coming with a combined army that potentially outnumbered his 4:1. And that's not counting the potential intervention of Sweden. Then there's the Peninsular British Army that missed out at Waterloo. Spain, Portugal, and Denmark were exhausted, but at the very least they could have provided material support. A victory at Waterloo might buy some time, but that was about it.

[Fubar2Niner]

Got a new one for you guys. What if Napoleon had won at Waterloo?


There'd be no such thing as Wellingtons ;)

[mapuc]

So no one could speculate in what kind of USA we would see today and it's history if USA became a German speaking country?

Markus

[Admiral Halsey]

So no one could speculate in what kind of USA we would see today and it's history if USA became a German speaking country?

Markus

Well the problem with that scenario is Germany would've needed to start colonizing the new world before France, England, Spain, and Portugal did.

[mapuc]

Well the problem with that scenario is Germany would've needed to start colonizing the new world before France, England, Spain, and Portugal did.

First time I heard of this, my first thought was. Would USA have allied with Germany in WWI and WWII or would they still have allied with England, France and Russia?

And would USA be a superpower today?

Markus

[Terragon]

Just because your country speaks the same language does NOT mean you are allies. (Reference the revolutions of Mexico as a starting point).

If the premise is that our country were full of german speakers and nothing else changed, nothing would really change.

Maybe Patrick Henry (or German-derative) of said name would've said "Gib mir Freiheit oder gib mir den Tod!" :D

We would still be a superpower today.

[Sailor Steve]

Got a new one for you guys. What if Napoleon had won at Waterloo?
I saw that Blackadder episode. :O:

[Admiral Halsey]

I saw that Blackadder episode. :O:

Blackadder?

[Admiral Halsey]

First time I heard of this, my first thought was. Would USA have allied with Germany in WWI and WWII or would they still have allied with England, France and Russia?

And would USA be a superpower today?

Markus

We were close to doing so during WW1. The Zimmerman Telegram was what pushed us onto the side of Britain and France,

[Sailor Steve]

Blackadder?
PM sent, so as not to derail thread. :sunny:

[TarJak]

PM sent, so as not to derail thread. :sunny:Too late.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vAvoaOaJNM

[Admiral Halsey]

Ok i've got another one. What if instead of dying Stonewall Jackson, after recovering from loosing his arm is sent west and fights Grant at Chattanooga instead of Bragg?

[Admiral Halsey]

No one has any thoughts about this one?

[Dread Knot]

No one has any thoughts about this one?



It's hard to say. Assuming a surviving Jackson changes the fortunes of the war for the South is assuming you get the inspired Jackson of the Shenandoah Valley and Chancellorsville, and not the uninspired Jackson of the Seven Days Battles, Cedar Mountain, or Brawner's Farm.

Throughout the war, both sides suffered mightily from the Peter Principle. Commanders who were brilliant at the brigade or corps level, or in an independent role, often proved surprisingly mediocre when promoted to the army level.

[mapuc]

I have a really though one.

It's not really a historical discussion as so. But it have a big if.

What if we the human never developed religion and or politics?
(or maybe it should be in a different thread?)

Markus

[Admiral Halsey]

I have a really though one.

It's not really a historical discussion as so. But it have a big if.

What if we the human never developed religion and or politics?
(or maybe it should be in a different thread?)

Markus

Ok that goes a bit deeper into alternate history then I ever intended this thread to go. I'll admit it's a great question but it's also one I have no frigging clue as to what the answer would be.

[mapuc]

Ok that goes a bit deeper into alternate history then I ever intended this thread to go. I'll admit it's a great question but it's also one I have no frigging clue as to what the answer would be.


I know, so we just forget the question and move on to the question before my posting.

Markus

[Cybermat47]

What if the Dutch had settled Australia before the British?

[Aktungbby]

^KangaReuters!:yeah:

[Aktungbby]

It's hard to say. Assuming a surviving Jackson changes the fortunes of the war for the South is assuming you get the inspired Jackson of the Shenandoah Valley and Chancellorsville, and not the uninspired Jackson of the Seven Days Battles, Cedar Mountain, or Brawner's Farm.

Throughout the war, both sides suffered mightily from the Peter Principle. Commanders who were brilliant at the brigade or corps level, or in an independent role, often proved surprisingly mediocre when promoted to the army level.

Precisely. As with Ewell losing his leg and some of his fire which was critical to his not taking Cemetery Hill the first day at Gettysburg, Ol' Stonewall might have been less than stellar at Gettysburg. Since Chancellorsville was a Confederate victory however, and generated the next push northward which did culminate in a disaster at Gettysburg, Lee would have had Jackson in command of his corps instead of Longsteet or A.P. Hill, who's incompetence accidentally started the battle when his division under Henry Heth stumbled into resolute cavalry on MacPherson Ridge. Lee, not in good condition himself, was less than resolute and gave indistinct commands to his 3 Corps Commanders leaving too much to God's will and his subordinate commanders. This had generally worked previously with an able Jackson and had he then been in charge of one of Lee's 2 wings as at Second Bull Run and Chancellorsville, Washington would have been the next stop without a chance 3 day disaster at Gettysburg. Chattanooga would then be an unnecessary concern; the western theatre was nasty, as at Shiloh, but secondary to the greater firestorm in the East. My guess is Sherman would still have 'gone down the rabbit hole'; destroyed Atlanta, reappearing at Savannah GA, having marched to the sea. Richard Thomas, my personal favorite, would still have done grim service in the western theatre and destroyed any Confederate army, as at Nashville. As at Chickamauga, Lee would have preferred to send 'his old warhorse, Longstreet, to Chattanooga and kept his 'right arm', Jackson, close at hand in the East.

[TarJak]

What if the Dutch had settled Australia before the British?
We zouden spreken Nederlands

[Jimbuna]

We zouden spreken Nederlands

U hebt zelfs moeilijk Engels sprekende :)

[TarJak]

U hebt zelfs moeilijk Engels sprekende :)

Mijn luchtkussenboot zit vol paling

[Admiral Halsey]

Ok how about this one. What if the first German won the First Battle of the Marne?

[Tribesman]

Ok how about this one. What if the first German won the First Battle of the Marne?
The front line would have been dug in a slightly different place.

[Dread Knot]

Ok how about this one. What if the first German won the First Battle of the Marne?


A German victory at the Marne may not be a knockout blow given German logistical difficulties, but it is a major step. If somehow the French Army stabilizes their front in fall/winter of 1914 and are in a bad position but are still clinging to Paris, then attempting to cut their losses and negotiate away a repeat of 1871 might be attractive. Certainly, one effect may be that the Italians do not enter on the Allied side in 1915. They remain neutral, or seeing that the Allies are weak, join the Germans, Austrians, and Ottomans. Either way, without the Italians, the Central Powers are able to defeat the Serbs that much easier. If the Italians join the Central Powers, they may stab the French in the back in 1915, like they did in 1940.

Who gets what in terms of territorial concessions is up for debate. The British likely get off lighter than the French and may even continue the struggle as in 1940. The Royal Navy still rules the waves.

[Jimbuna]

Mijn luchtkussenboot zit vol paling

Probeer de haring, de smaak veel beter.

[TarJak]

Probeer de haring, de smaak veel beter.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Rollmops_01_retouched.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qym3VTTadBk

[Admiral Halsey]

Ok I know this isn't really alternate history but it's a question I want to ask and not make a new topic for. I was just reading Tom Clancy's SSN book and after reading the chapter where the US navy wipes out an entire Chinese TF it got me thinking. What do you consider the most one-sided naval battles in history?(Oh and if anyone wants this to be moved into a new topic go ahead and ask a mod.)

[mapuc]

Ok I know this isn't really alternate history but it's a question I want to ask and not make a new topic for. I was just reading Tom Clancy's SSN book and after reading the chapter where the US navy wipes out an entire Chinese TF it got me thinking. What do you consider the most one-sided naval battles in history?(Oh and if anyone wants this to be moved into a new topic go ahead and ask a mod.)

A little offtopic question

Which book are you talking about?

Edit found it. It is as you wrote SSN.

Markus

[Terragon]

I own the paperback version of that book! ;) (I found particularly interesting the parts where it pointed out that diesel boats can run quieter than nucs).

In terms of one-sided naval battles, Pearl Harbor comes to mind.

[Admiral Halsey]

I own the paperback version of that book! ;) (I found particularly interesting the parts where it pointed out that diesel boats can run quieter than nucs).

In terms of one-sided naval battles, Pearl Harbor comes to mind.

Yeah that's always made me wonder why we don't make some modern diesels. They might not be as fast as nukes but running on those batteries does make them quieter. Also I don't think Pearl really counts as a battle. It was more of a slaughter. Then again we did the same thing to Japan during the Philippine Battle.

[Aktungbby]

Ok I know this isn't really alternate history but it's a question I want to ask and not make a new topic for. I was just reading Tom Clancy's SSN book and after reading the chapter where the US navy wipes out an entire Chinese TF it got me thinking. What do you consider the most one-sided naval battles in history?(Oh and if anyone wants this to be moved into a new topic go ahead and ask a mod.)

In the modern era, hands down: Tsushima Straight,1904. In the Age of Sail, as described previously in this thread: Aboukir Bay, 1798. Both great fleet actions entailed tremendous and utter destruction to one side and had far reaching consequences. In the case of Tsushima Straight, the British threw away the book and developed the dreadnought all big gun battleship...precipitating the great arms race of the 20th century and two world wars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsushima At Aboukir, Napoleon's Egyptian army was cut off-India saved for England's empire, and the only French captain to escape the disaster found himself in command of the French/Spanish combined fleet at Cape Trafalgar six years later...and cannot have been enthusiastic at the prospect of facing Lord Nelson a second time...as his performance reflected. http://www.nelsonsnavy.co.uk/broadside1.html

[Oberon]

The Battle of Myeongnyang in the Imjin war was probably a good contender, especially since although the odds were completely stacked against the Korean navy (133 to 13), they thrashed the Japanese 31-0. :hmmm:

[Aktungbby]

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~sford/research/turtle/ (http://www2.hawaii.edu/~sford/research/turtle/) Indeed and duly considered; but why pick that one battle in the whole of the 3-way Imjin War, which was notable for its slaughter of the less-than-adept at sea faring Japanese; the various sources differ as to the casualty count and may involve some propaganda on the Korean side as well. ADM Yi Sun Sin, the able Korean admiral, did not suvive his last victory; apparently won with the aid of the unique Turtle boats-history's first armored battle ships. What is apparent from the continued success of the Korean Navy is that the Japanese still kept coming and were under the impression 'they had won the war'...:hmmm: Some other contenders considered: 249 BC Drepana. For the Romans, Drepana was an unmitigated disaster. Each Roman ship would have had about 420 twenty men onboard (300 rowers and 120 marines). The loss of ninety-three ships meant that at least 39,000 men were either killed or captured, except for a relative handful that made it ashore and escaped inland. A Roman loss of such a magnitude was a stunning reversal of prior fortune. The result of Drepana gave Carthage yet another lease on life. Looking back on the dire and lopsided outcome of the battle, the Romans would nod grimly, and say that the offended gods had repaid ADM Pulcher for his impiety in discarding the pre-battle sacred chicken offering to Posidon. (plausible deniability-blame it on the gods!) The Carthaginians lost no ships...yet the Romans came back, as with the Japanese to win all three Punic wars. And the real kicker, as it actually put finito to a world power of its time: 405 BC: Aegospotami! The Spartan fleet of 180 ships commanded by Lysander, completely destroys the Athenian fleet of 170 ships, commanded by Conon, and executes 3000 rowers, (all citizen volunteers) with no losses. The 27 year Peloponnesian war is ended. Athens 'long walls' are destroyed along with her maritime power to the Black Sea and Aegean , and Sparta assumed hegemonic dominance for the next 30 years. Obviously, my #1 choice for the 'Age of Rowing'! :salute:

[Admiral Halsey]

Ok again this isn't AH stuff but I still want to know your guys opinion, What do you think is the most important battle in mankinds history?

[TarJak]

The battle of the sexes or the battle for the TV remote.

[u crank]

For some of us, it's the battle of the bulge. And I don't mean that one in the Ardennes. :O:

[Jimbuna]

For some of us, it's the battle of the bulge. And I don't mean that one in the Ardennes. :O:

My wife laughed at that :)

[Aktungbby]

http://africartoons.com/sites/default/files/images/20131025-Chiplr.preview.jpg (http://africartoons.com/sites/default/files/images/20131025-Chiplr.jpg)the real battle of the bulge! @ ADMIRAL HALSY; just to stay on thread: Chalons, between Attila, the Hun, and Aëtius, the Roman Commander, for all the marbles of western civilization...at the time, 451 AD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Catalaunian_Plains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Catalaunian_Plains)

[Admiral Halsey]

Anyone else have any battles they think are the most important in history?

[Dread Knot]

Anyone else have any battles they think are the most important in history?


It's not a battle per se. But the moment when the Mongols were poised on the cusp of overrunning the rest of Europe, and turned back either because their Khan died, or they were simply not interested in advancing any further, was a turning point for the whole western world.

I'd say classical battles like Marathon and Salamis had similar east versus west implications.

[Aktungbby]

Duly considered and Salamis at least is my #1 of all great sea battles of 5 including Lepanto. However the Mongols were at the end of their tether geographics-wise: time and distance; and the death of a Khan was weakness to their tribal political structure. Additionally, evry Mongol-archer generally had a string of horses which contributed to the ceaseless and confounding mobility of the units; Europe, as with the earlier Hunnic cavalry, is not conducive to massed horseback warfare foragewise. You need Asiatic grassland for that. My other choice for a major do between two cultures is Alexander of Macedonia's defeat of Darius III at Gaugamela 31/OCT/331 BC, also known as Arbela. Alexander famously refused a night attack with a superb army of 47,000 against a Persian host of 100,000 to 1,000,000?? not-so-superb men; (Accounts vary) replete with an eclipse of the moon, portending some god's favor, etc etc. and a hot pre-fight meal to the Greeks whilst the Persians "stood to arms all night'',( that's just COLD BBY:huh:) all on a field prepared for the Persian scythed chariots. Arguably Alex's finest hour for all the marbles and we ain't speakn' Farsi today. Casualties stood at 4,000 Macedonian vs 45,000 Persian by the end of the day(accounts vary); with Darius on the run and Alexander: King of Asia. Of the two fights however, since Alexander opted to carry the holy war of the Greeks to the Persians, Chalons was the more critical since the Roman west was truly "put to it" defensively as evidenced by the use of Visigoth allies under King Theodoric,(killed in the immense slaughter) as the fighting continued into the night!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Battle_gaugamela_decisive.gif (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Battle_gaugamela_decisive.gif)

[Admiral Halsey]

Got a new AH topic for you guys. What if China never intervened during the Korean War?

[Jimbuna]

The world would be buying a lot of electronic equipment from the north.

[Oberon]

No North Korea. That's a pretty simple one, before the Chinese intervened the DPRK was absolutely smashed, scattered to the four winds.
You'd probably still have a fairly strong communist movement in the modern unified nation of Korea, especially amongst the disaffected youth in the modern economic crisis, but any communist movements in the 1950s post-war would be clamped down on heavily by Rhee. I also doubt there would be US troops in Korea past the 1970s, once Mao had nationalised the collective (bought the farm :03:) the PRC would have no real interest in smashing Korea with Deng at the helm, and in fact would probably become its biggest trading partner. It would also be quite happy that there wouldn't be a horde of hungry North Koreans ready to flood across its border if the DPRK toppled.

[Admiral Halsey]

Ok i've got a new one for you guys. It's nearing the end of WW2 and Patton is waiting for Eisenhower to give the go ahead to try and capture Berlin before the Soviets. Though Eisenhower wants Patton to hold, Truman orders him to have Patton and the Third Army go full bore after Berlin with one caveat. If any Soviet troops are encountered he is to avoid conflict no matter what. Well of course Stalin finds out about this and not only orders the Soviet armies to try to capture Berlin faster but also secretly orders them to do what ever it takes to stop the Americans even if it means war with them. Zhukov orders some of his troops to bypass Berlin and get in front of the American advance to either trick them into thinking that the Soviets already captured Berlin or if that fails to engage and stop them. At Leipzig the two sides meet and after Patton doesn't fall for the trick the Soviets attack.

What I want to know is does this start a new war, if so who wins, and if it's a war between the Allies and Russia does the secret weapon the American's have cooking in New Mexico make an appearance without ever having been tested?

[Raptor1]

I'm really doubtful of this scenario. First of all, if the Americans are under orders to avoid conflict with Soviet units at all costs and the Soviets are already in Leipzig, then there's no reason for the Soviets to even attack. Besides that, Stalin would never give orders to attack Western Allied units like that; Berlin's fate had already been decided at the Yalta Conference, in the rather unlikely case the Western Allies somehow manage to capture Berlin before the Soviets, he'd just demand for them to pull back into their designated occupation zones. Now, if they don't do that (which I also doubt), then the Soviets would attack.

As for whether it would start a new war, I believe that it would, but most likely not a very big one, confined to the area of Germany itself. For the winning side, I would bet on the Soviets; the Western Allies would have been poorly equipped and positioned to take on the Red Army and probably not very inclined to start a full scale war with the Soviet Union. I imagine it would end with some sort of negotiated peace that sees the Western Allies pull out of Berlin completely at the least and very probably also Austria and most or all of West Germany.

As for the A-Bomb, there's just no point in using it in this scenario. What strategic purpose would it have?

[Admiral Halsey]

I'm really doubtful of this scenario. First of all, if the Americans are under orders to avoid conflict with Soviet units at all costs and the Soviets are already in Leipzig, then there's no reason for the Soviets to even attack. Besides that, Stalin would never give orders to attack Western Allied units like that; Berlin's fate had already been decided at the Yalta Conference, in the rather unlikely case the Western Allies somehow manage to capture Berlin before the Soviets, he'd just demand for them to pull back into their designated occupation zones. Now, if they don't do that (which I also doubt), then the Soviets would attack. The Soviets and Americans meet in Leipzig as the both arrive at nearly the same time. Patton wants to use the city to concentrate his army for the final push while the Soviets want to use it to try an head off the American troops. As for the Yalta Conference i'm having Truman realize what that would end up causing in Europe and also not trusting that Stalin would hold free elections.

As for whether it would start a new war, I believe that it would, but most likely not a very big one, confined to the area of Germany itself. For the winning side, I would bet on the Soviets; the Western Allies would have been poorly equipped and positioned to take on the Red Army and probably not very inclined to start a full scale war with the Soviet Union. I imagine it would end with some sort of negotiated peace that sees the Western Allies pull out of Berlin completely at the least and very probably also Austria and most or all of West Germany. Yeah I doubt we'd just give Germany to the Soviets. Plus if Stalin smelled blood he would've pushed his armies to the Channel and if looked liked that was going to happen well i'll answer that next.

As for the A-Bomb, there's just no point in using it in this scenario. What strategic purpose would it have? Well if they could've trapped a major force of soviet troops one bomb could wipe them out. The A-Bomb is the great equalizer in all this you see. Truman would know that once he finds out about it and would realize that if they can hold on long enough dropping one or two on the Soviet armies would probably win a war against them by themselves.(You've got to remember that it wasn't until 49 that the Soviets had a working A-Bomb. Until then America could've used them during war without fear of having one dropped back.)

[Raptor1]

The Soviets and Americans meet in Leipzig as the both arrive at nearly the same time. Patton wants to use the city to concentrate his army for the final push while the Soviets want to use it to try an head off the American troops.

If the Red Army is as far as Leipzig then Berlin is almost certainly invested and the Americans would have to pass through the Soviet front to get in.


As for the Yalta Conference i'm having Truman realize what that would end up causing in Europe and also not trusting that Stalin would hold free elections.

Truman realized that just fine. Capturing Berlin during the war isn't going to change the fate of Eastern Europe in the slightest. Unless the Western Allies are fully prepared to fight a war with the Soviets, which, given you said Truman specifically tries to avoid conflict with Soviet units, seems unlikely in your scenario, it wouldn't even change the eventual fate of Berlin itself.


Yeah I doubt we'd just give Germany to the Soviets. Plus if Stalin smelled blood he would've pushed his armies to the Channel and if looked liked that was going to happen well i'll answer that next.

I'm certain the Western Allies would have never just given Germany to the Soviet Union. They would fight, I just think they'd lose. As for Stalin, I'm really not sure what he would have tried doing if it looked like the Western Allies were losing. It's possible the campaign would have continued into Western Europe but at the very least the Soviets would have felt justified to stake a claim on occupying the areas I mentioned.


Well if they could've trapped a major force of soviet troops one bomb could wipe them out. The A-Bomb is the great equalizer in all this you see. Truman would know that once he finds out about it and would realize that if they can hold on long enough dropping one or two on the Soviet armies would probably win a war against them by themselves.(You've got to remember that it wasn't until 49 that the Soviets had a working A-Bomb. Until then America could've used them during war without fear of having one dropped back.)

You're ascribing Wunderwaffe properties to the atomic bomb that it really didn't have. At the time this scenario takes place, neither a sufficient amount of weapons nor the delivery systems for reliably using them against a tactical target were even close to existing. Using an atomic bomb at the front line would not achieve anything except turn the area into a smoldering ruin, blind and possibly blow fallout over your own troops...oh, and kill some of the enemy. The only way you can reliably deliver a nuke to a major troop concentration is if you've encircled your enemy at a city or something, in which case you're killing an enemy that is basically at your mercy, destroying a town you were trying to capture, killing its inhabitants (who are not even Russian) and subjecting your own troops to the side effects. Even if this somehow comes to pass, you've not achieved much strategically. It's not like a World War II-era nuclear weapon can instantly annihilate a pocket the size of the Sixth Army's at Stalingrad or Army Group Center's at Minsk; maybe something on the scale of the 101st Airborne Division at Bastogne.

Also, while it doesn't have the same shock value, conventional carpet bombing can do as much as a nuclear bomb more safely (both in terms of not hurting your own side and not risking the nuclear-carrying aircraft being shot down and its payload captured), and there's a good reason why that's reserved for strategic, rather than tactical, bombing.

In more realistic uses for nuclear weapons in World War II, the strategic targets just don't exist in this scenario. Any sort of major Soviet industrial or population center worth bombing would be far out of reach of USAAF bombers. Operational targets like rail heads and supply dumps might conceivably be targeted but, again, you're just wasting (not to mention risking) your nukes while not gaining anything over the use of conventional bombing.

In short, I just can't see a logical use for a nuclear weapon here. In any case, I seriously doubt the use of one or two would be anything remotely close to war-winning by itself.

[Admiral Halsey]

If the Red Army is as far as Leipzig then Berlin is almost certainly invested and the Americans would have to pass through the Soviet front to get in.I'll answer the other ones after I check some of my history books to make sure what I respond is factual. This one though i'll answer now. In my original post I stated that Zhukov detached some troops to either trick the Americans into thinking they've already captured Berlin or if failing that to slow them down by any means necessary. That would mean those troops are to just drive straight towards the Americans and would ignore anything around them. I could see them pushing past Berlin a week or so before the actual fighting in the city begins. Also as for the order to avoid conflict I just realized that I typed in the wrong thing. I mean to say avoid conflict with the Soviets if at all possible.

[Dread Knot]

I think any post-war contest in a defeated Germany, both sides had enough strength on hand to make the outcome of a clash there anyone's guess. It would have been a come-as-you-are-mechanized war of an intensity never seen before. It's outcome would have been dependent not on distant strategic potentials, but on the decisions of the commanders in the theater and the determination of their men to carry it out. I think the atomic bomb would have been a non-factor for the most part. By this point in war, there wasn't much left intact in the western Soviet Union to use one on.

Vehicle for vehicle, the Soviets, with their T-34/85 medium and JSII heavy tanks versus the Allied Sherman and Pershing counterparts, would have enjoyed the small kind of qualitive edge the Germans had during the latter part to WW2. However, in the air and in logistics the advantages go to the Allies. I think the critical area would in morale. In particular, tens of thousands of Allied troops seeing the end of the war in sight might have recoiled from the prospect of plunging into what could be an even longer and bloodier conflict. Soldiers serving in the more rigid and strait-jacketed Red Army and endured at this point to much suffering, probably would have come to terms with such a psychological set-back quicker.

[Admiral Halsey]

Time for a new one! I had a thought earlier that made me shudder and is the also the AH question. What if the Soviets had figured out how to extract the resources from Siberia efficiently? How much would that effect the cold war?

[Admiral Halsey]

Ok i'll admit its not the most exciting AH scenario but surely you guys have some thoughts on this one.

[Aktungbby]

Alexander Solzhenitsyn does not write the Gulag Archipelago and a great work of first hand experience, required reading in Russia, goes unpublished. Its tremendous impact on the Soviet Union was so negatively great that the state could not deny its authenticity. A true shock to the Soviet system, his pen proved mightier than the sword! Required reading alongside War and Peace .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago) http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1204127475p5/10420.jpg (http://www.goodreads.com/photo/author/10420.Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn) Nobel Prize 1970

[Admiral Halsey]

Wow it's been awhile since i've posted on here isn't it? Welp I got another scenario for you guys finally. What if Mark Antony had won the Battle of Actium?

[Aktungbby]

It would all be Greek to me! In a Macedonian Ptolemaic sorta way! :woot:

[STEED]

Got a new AH topic for you guys. What if China never intervened during the Korean War?

Two and half years shorter.

Interesting point as in the case of Vietnam according to a recent documentary I saw America did not want to repeat the Korean error in dragging China into the war.

[Dread Knot]

Two and half years shorter.

Interesting point as in the case of Vietnam according to a recent documentary I saw America did not want to repeat the Korean error in dragging China into the war.

The Chinese waited until 1979, six years after we quit, stuck their toe in, declared victory and left. Very clever. Why didn't we think of that. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

[Admiral Halsey]

Got another one for you guys after all this time. What if Georgy Zhukov had taken over after Stalin died instead of Khrushchev?

[mapuc]

a more democratic communism-if that exist

It's hard to predict, how the life would be for the Soviet people.

Markus

[Aktungbby]

http://www.belarusguide.com/images/people/USSR_1945_Victory_Parad.jpg (http://www.belarusguide.com/images/people/USSR_1945_Victory_Parad.jpg)< Zhukov in the victory parade with Stalin's permission. Classier Soviet equestrian dressage for sure! As opposed to Putin now>http://media.theweek.com/img/dir_0090/45424_article_full/just-riding-this-horse-topless-nbd.jpg?203Although he might have had to contend with our guy: GEN George S Patton (in a Steeple-chase(1914) when not saving the Lipizzaner Stallions(1945). Big aßholes really do like to horse around! GEN Patton had already stolen a march on the Russians in true cavalry fashion! "The problem was that the ruthless and ravenous Red Army was approaching; both men were concerned the animals (the Lipizzaners) might become army rations. But, as spelled out at the Yalta conference that divided up postwar Europe, Czechoslovakia fell within the Soviet zone of occupation. "We mutually agreed that these fine animals should not fall into Communist hands and the prisoners should be rescued," Reed recalled. He sent a message to Patton at Third Army headquarters requesting permission for the operation. Patton's swift response: "Get them. Make it fast!"http://ww2db.com/images/person_patton38.jpg (http://ww2db.com/images/person_patton38.jpg) George knew what fast was all about...and he should have stuck with horses; Cars killed him. He is buried at Hamm Luxemburg!!!:salute:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/General_Patton%27s_grave_300806.jpg/800px-General_Patton%27s_grave_300806.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/General_Patton%27s_grave_300806.jpg)

[mapuc]

I'm glad Admiral Halsey reopen this thread, ´cause I have a new alternative scenario for you to think about. It's about the start of WWII

Markus

[Admiral Halsey]

I'm glad Admiral Halsey reopen this thread, ´cause I have a new alternative scenario for you to think about. It's about the start of WWII

Markus

I'd love to see it.

[mapuc]

I got the idea from the Crimea crisis and NATO.

Would England and France have declared Germany war IF:

1. Germany had WMD ?

2. Both side had WMD ?

Markus

[Admiral Halsey]

I got the idea from the Crimea crisis and NATO.

Would England and France have declared Germany war IF:

1. Germany had WMD ?

2. Both side had WMD ?

Markus

Well technically they had WMD's during WW1. They had Chemical Weapons that they could and did use during the fighting. Now if it's nuclear weapons you're talking about that depends. How much of the dangers of using them do they know? Is it modern levels or do they think it's just a really darn big bomb with no other side effects?

[Tribesman]

I got the idea from the Crimea crisis and NATO.

Would England and France have declared Germany war IF:

1. Germany had WMD ?

2. Both side had WMD ?

Markus
They had them.
The ban on chemical weapons only covered "first use".
The German ban on chemical weapons was in the treaty of Versailles which the 3rd reich got rid of.
Two of the Axis powers are known to have used wmds in the pre war and earlywar period.

[mapuc]

I should have been more detailed.

I was thinking more in nuclear weapons and moderne Biological weapons

Markus

[Admiral Halsey]

I should have been more detailed.

I was thinking more in nuclear weapons and moderne Biological weapons

Markus

Depends. Do they have modern knowledge about what the aftermath of using those weapons would be like or they think of them as just really big bombs with no real danger in using them?

[mapuc]

Depends. Do they have modern knowledge about what the aftermath of using those weapons would be like or they think of them as just really big bombs with no real danger in using them?


Let us say Hitler and his party is in power and the story up to September 39 is the same except Germany have developed V2 rocket and they have developed a nuclear device that's fits into the V2 rocket.

That's what I was thinking about.

Maybe Germany would declare England and France war instead. if Germany was the only country with this weapon...who knows

Markus

[Admiral Halsey]

Let us say Hitler and his party is in power and the story up to September 39 is the same except Germany have developed V2 rocket and they have developed a nuclear device that's fits into the V2 rocket.

That's what I was thinking about.

Maybe Germany would declare England and France war instead. if Germany was the only country with this weapon...who knows

Markus

They'd have to declare war at that point. It then becomes a race to defeat Germany before they can make enough nukes to conquer the whole world. Heck Stalin might surprise Germany by fighting them after Russia invades Poland. Do that with a quick push by the B.E.F into the Saarland to knock out a fair bit of Germany's industrial capability and it might not matter whether Germany has nukes or not.

[mapuc]

They'd have to declare war at that point. It then becomes a race to defeat Germany before they can make enough nukes to conquer the whole world. Heck Stalin might surprise Germany by fighting them after Russia invades Poland. Do that with a quick push by the B.E.F into the Saarland to knock out a fair bit of Germany's industrial capability and it might not matter whether Germany has nukes or not.

I think you're right and the allied would invade from west, whatever the cost may be.

Markus

[Admiral Halsey]

I think you're right and the allied would invade from west, whatever the cost may be.

Markus

As all that is happening it then becomes a question of what do Japan and the US end up doing?

[mapuc]

As all that is happening it then becomes a question of what do Japan and the US end up doing?

With Japan and their "Lebensraum" and USA's(forgot the word it has something to do with be our self and do not engage in other countries problem)

I think that those two country may have their little fight on their own.

Europe is bleeding after a 3 years of bloody fighting from Sept. -39 to aug -42

The war in the Pacific went a whole lot longer from 41 to 47 and made USA poor.

Markus

[Admiral Halsey]

With Japan and their "Lebensraum" and USA's(forgot the word it has something to do with be our self and do not engage in other countries problem)

I think that those two country may have their little fight on their own.

Europe is bleeding after a 3 years of bloody fighting from Sept. -39 to aug -42

The war in the Pacific went a whole lot longer from 41 to 47 and made USA poor.

Markus

I doubt the war in the Pacific goes beyond 46. Unless Japan is able to somehow become an industrial powerhouse it has no way of surviving that long. Honestly I could see the war in the Pacific ending sooner since no resources would have to be diverted to Europe.

[mapuc]

I doubt the war in the Pacific goes beyond 46. Unless Japan is able to somehow become an industrial powerhouse it has no way of surviving that long. Honestly I could see the war in the Pacific ending sooner since no resources would have to be diverted to Europe.


I was thinking more like-USA didn't invent the bomb and had to invade Japan.

USA invaded Japan in Nov 45 and fought almost 2 bloody years against The imperial soldie and the civilans.

Markus

[Admiral Halsey]

I was thinking more like-USA didn't invent the bomb and had to invade Japan.

USA invaded Japan in Nov 45 and fought almost 2 bloody years against The imperial soldie and the civilans.

Markus

The invasion was never supposed to conquer all of Japan. Olympic was to just grab the Southern portion of Kyushu while Coronet was supposed to capture Tokyo and if possible the Emperor. At most it lasts until October of 46.

[Oberon]

Olympic would have been delayed since the invasion force would have been heavily damaged by Typhoon Louise which tore through Okinawa on the 9th October '45. So the invasion would probably not have gone ahead until December or January.
Given that the original invasion plans called for liberal use of atomic weaponry, it's safe to say that the casualties without the atomic weaponry would be horrendous (given that even with the atomic bombs the casualties were expected to be in the high thousands at least).
Coronet would have gone ahead as planned but I doubt the Emperor would be in Tokyo when the US arrived, he would have been pulled out as soon as word arrived that the US was near and probably hidden somewhere to the north.
The Soviets would meanwhile be stomping around Hokkaido, trying to figure out whether it would be worth trying to take northern japan or whether to be happy with Hokkaido.
I don't think the fighting would continue into 1947, but certainly guerrilla operations might, especially if the US accidentally killed the Emperor whilst trying to capture him. To be honest though, it's hard to be sure, given how tough the battle for Okinawa was, and how many died...extrapolating that to Japan itself...it doesn't paint a pretty picture. I did do the math once, here it is:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1721949&post1721949

[Admiral Halsey]

Olympic would have been delayed since the invasion force would have been heavily damaged by Typhoon Louise which tore through Okinawa on the 9th October '45. So the invasion would probably not have gone ahead until December or January.
Given that the original invasion plans called for liberal use of atomic weaponry, it's safe to say that the casualties without the atomic weaponry would be horrendous (given that even with the atomic bombs the casualties were expected to be in the high thousands at least).
Coronet would have gone ahead as planned but I doubt the Emperor would be in Tokyo when the US arrived, he would have been pulled out as soon as word arrived that the US was near and probably hidden somewhere to the north.
The Soviets would meanwhile be stomping around Hokkaido, trying to figure out whether it would be worth trying to take northern japan or whether to be happy with Hokkaido.
I don't think the fighting would continue into 1947, but certainly guerrilla operations might, especially if the US accidentally killed the Emperor whilst trying to capture him. To be honest though, it's hard to be sure, given how tough the battle for Okinawa was, and how many died...extrapolating that to Japan itself...it doesn't paint a pretty picture. I did do the math once, here it is:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1721949&post1721949

Oh the title of the thread you linked to made me mad. Of course the bombings were necessary. Do people not realize how fanatical the Japanese were back then? The Halsey quote "Before We're Through With Them, the Japanese Language Will Be Spoken Only in Hell" would've been startlingly accurate. Plus add in the Kamikaze strike against the ships bombarding and trying to land and you've got the makings of potentially the bloodiest battle in history.

[Admiral Halsey]

Ok i've got a new one for you guys. In this scenario it's WW1 and America has declared war on Britain and France instead of Germany. We all know the first thing the US would have to do is break the blockade of Germany and this is where the question come in. Do the High Seas Fleet and the US Fleet break the blockade or is Germany still doomed to lose the war via economic strangulation?

[Catfish]

Ok i've got a new one for you guys. In this scenario it's WW1 and America has declared war on Britain and France instead of Germany. We all know the first thing the US would have to do is break the blockade of Germany and this is where the question come in. Do the High Seas Fleet and the US Fleet break the blockade or is Germany still doomed to lose the war via economic strangulation?

I would have made this easier. England does not declare war because of a scrap of paper, and Paris can be reached by june, 1915.
Then the war extends in the east, no bolshevik revolution, for Germany a bit more territory in the east and no Hitler, and no Stalin. An early EU and and no cold war. How boring eh ? :03:


Regarding the initial post - President Wilson was really not sure whether he should support England, which violated the US-declared free trade on the seas. Also almost a third of the US' population was of german origin.
It needed some Raemakers and other overblown propaganda to fulfil the industry's (especially Bethlehem steel works) will though, apart from that after lending so much money to England the latter had to win the war, to be able to pay back debts.

My take is the US fleet would not have stood a chance against England, but maybe alone the threat of a western US fleet-in-being, probably would have given the german Navy more leeway for operations. :hmmm:

[Admiral Halsey]

I would have made this easier. England does not declare war because of a scrap of paper, and Paris can be reached by june, 1915.
Then the war extends in the east, no bolshevik revolution, for Germany a bit more territory in the east and no Hitler, and no Stalin. An early EU and and no cold war. How boring eh ? :03:


Regarding the initial post - President Wilson was really not sure whether he should support England, which violated the US-declared free trade on the seas. Also almost a third of the US' population was of german origin.
It needed some Raemakers and other overblown propaganda to fulfil the industry's (especially Bethlehem steel works) will though, apart from that after lending so much money to England the latter had to win the war, to be able to pay back debts.

My take is the US fleet would not have stood a chance against England, but maybe alone the threat of a western US fleet-in-being, probably would have given the german Navy more leeway for operations. :hmmm:

Sure the US Fleet alone couldn't take on the British Fleet. I was thinking that the German and US Fleets would work together to try and trap the British Fleet. Plus the German's held their own at Jutland and came away as tonnage victors so it's not like they were some two-bit fleet of 40 year old ships.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

Had you thrown the CSA into the mix you would of had the part of the Southern Victory Series, coincidently that happens to be the part of the series I just finished reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Victory_Series#Great_War

[Admiral Halsey]

Had you thrown the CSA into the mix you would of had the part of the Southern Victory Series, coincidently that happens to be the part of the series I just finished reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Victory_Series#Great_War

That's partly where I got the idea from actually.

[TarJak]

Sure the US Fleet alone couldn't take on the British Fleet. I was thinking that the German and US Fleets would work together to try and trap the British Fleet. Plus the German's held their own at Jutland and came away as tonnage victors so it's not like they were some two-bit fleet of 40 year old ships. Given seaborne communications at the time the working together thing would have been a challenge. Sure if they could coordinate,the combined fleets might cause the Poms a few headaches, but that coordination would have been next to impossible given the technology of the time.

[Admiral Halsey]

Given seaborne communications at the time the working together thing would have been a challenge. Sure if they could coordinate,the combined fleets might cause the Poms a few headaches, but that coordination would have been next to impossible given the technology of the time.

Still there is one thing the US would have going for it that neither Britain or France could counter. The insane industrial capacity of the US. Sure it wasn't as good as during WW2 but it was still powerful enough that it could more then make up any losses the fleet had.

[Tribesman]

Ok i've got a new one for you guys. In this scenario it's WW1 and America has declared war on Britain and France instead of Germany. We all know the first thing the US would have to do is break the blockade of Germany and this is where the question come in. Do the High Seas Fleet and the US Fleet break the blockade or is Germany still doomed to lose the war via economic strangulation?

To break the blockade of Germany they would have to transfer to German ports for operations in European waters. Considering the fun they had just transferring to British ports it doesn't seem plausible.
Blockading British Atlantic trade is another matter though.

[Jimbuna]

Given seaborne communications at the time the working together thing would have been a challenge. Sure if they could coordinate,the combined fleets might cause the Poms a few headaches, but that coordination would have been next to impossible given the technology of the time.

Agreed...unless the two were able to join forces the RN would probably defeat them separately.

Far better attempting to stop British supplies/trade.

[Admiral Halsey]

Ok i've got TWO questions for you guys. What if the German torps worked right from the get go of WW2 instead of nearly 3 years into the war? The second question is the same thin except replace German torps with American torps.

[TarJak]

It's likely a few thousand more tons of shipping get sunk but the end result of the war comes out much the same. Maybe Japan gets whacked 6 months or so earlier. Britain survives in tact but hungrier. Maybe the European theatre extends for a few weeks at most.

[mapuc]

Here a new one(got the idea from an another discussion)

This is about the civil war i America and our discussion about nuclear weapon

Would one or both side have used this weapon, if it was invented at that time or if the civil war was fought about 100 years later than it was?

Markus

[LoBlo]

Here a new one(got the idea from an another discussion)

This is about the civil war i America and our discussion about nuclear weapon

Would one or both side have used this weapon, if it was invented at that time or if the civil war was fought about 100 years later than it was?

Markus

An interesting question.

Weapons of mass destruction weren't available at that time so their impact on political psychology or strategy can't be predicted really. One could look at other categories of weapons that aren't technically WMDs, but have a intent for wide spread destruction such as air-dropped Napalm, cluster bombs, or land mines and it wouldn't be hard to image that those weapons would have been used. The gattling gun certainly was, not to mention Sherman's Scorched earth tatics.

Alternatively one could also look at other forms of WMDs that have been used in modern civil war scenarios, for example, the recent use of chemical weapons in Syria or use of chemical/biological weapons by Saadam Hussein on adversary groups within Iraq in the 1980s. The difference however being that the possession of the weapons were unilateral rather than bilateral or parodied.

Overall I feel that parity possession (on each side) of WMD capabilities has generally been a deterrent to conflict itself and may have in and of itself changed the will to fight in the first place, inhibiting the escalation open war altogether. Hard to attack someone with their finger on the bomb.

lb

[Admiral Halsey]

Here a new one(got the idea from an another discussion)

This is about the civil war i America and our discussion about nuclear weapon

Would one or both side have used this weapon, if it was invented at that time or if the civil war was fought about 100 years later than it was?

Markus

I think this is one of the few time I can confidently give my answer. If the north had it they sure as heck would've used the bomb, especially if Grant was in charge by that point. If the south had it I doubt they use it. After all Atom bomb's aren't really gentlemanly or chivalrous are they?

[LoBlo]

I think this is one of the few time I can confidently give my answer. If the north had it they sure as heck would've used the bomb, especially if Grant was in charge by that point. If the south had it I doubt they use it. After all Atom bomb's aren't really gentlemanly or chivalrous are they?

What is gentlemanly or chivalrous about comitting treason? Or slavery for that matter? :nope:

[Admiral Halsey]

What is gentlemanly or chivalrous about comitting treason? Or slavery for that matter? :/\\!!

Yeah I know. I was just trying to reference the fact that the South always states how Gentlemanly and chivalrous they were during the war when in reality they were no better then the North.

[Oberon]

Steady gents, lest we get another civil war happen in this thread.

Personally I think both sides would have used it if they had it. Timeline-191 makes a good example of that.

[Aktungbby]

An interesting question.

Weapons of mass destruction weren't available at that time so their impact on political psychology or strategy can't be predicted really.
Beggin' yer pardon Sir!:D http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1088/did-whites-ever-give-native-americans-blankets-infected-with-smallpox (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1088/did-whites-ever-give-native-americans-blankets-infected-with-smallpox) I give you Sir Jeffry Amherst and Biological Warfare circa 1760's but known to have eliminated most of the aboriginal population of the New World mostly by circumstance but also by intent as with Sir Jeffry Amherst's plan to import smallpox infected blankets for distribution. Not unlike Mongol catapults with bubonic plague victims for ordinance: " P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England is at too great a Distance to think of that at present." Later William Tecumsah Sherman invoked the same ethic against the plains Indians. http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-cliven-bundy-standoff-wounded-knee.html (http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-cliven-bundy-standoff-wounded-knee.html) In 1867, William Sherman wrote a letter to General Grant insisting that “we are not going to let thieving, ragged Indians check and stop the progress” of the railroad. About a year earlier, Sherman had urged Grant to “act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women, and children.” Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo points out (http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=99) that Sherman set out to make the Sioux “feel the superior power of the Government,” even if “the final solution to the Indian problem” required that they be physically annihilated. "“Massive hunting parties began to arrive in the West by train, with thousands of men packing .50 caliber rifles, and leaving a trail of buffalo carnage in their wake," “Hunters began killing buffalo by the hundreds of thousands,” leaving their ravaged bodies to bloat and fester.

When legislatures in some states attempted to enact measures to conserve the buffalo, their objections were overruled by the Feds. The higher “national purpose” required a “total war” strategy that included the destruction of the buffalo in order to break the resistance of the Plains Indians. A serious uptick of his 'March to the Sea' technique if ever!


“These men have done more in the last two years, and will do more in the next year, to settle the vexed Indian question, than the entire regular army has done in the last forty years,” wrote General Sheridan with satisfaction (http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/aboutbuffalo/bisonnativeamericans.html). “They are destroying the Indians' commissary. And it is a well-known fact that an army losing its base of supplies is placed at a great disadvantage. Send them [the private buffalo hunters] powder and lead, if you will; but for a lasting peace, let them kill, skin and sell until the buffaloes are exterminated. Then your prairies can be covered with speckled cattle.” In short, both Sir Jeffery Amherst and William Tecumsah Sherman, both operating at the highest levels of administrative power, espoused two brutal weapons of mass destruction aimed at genocide: Smallpox and mass starvation in lieu of 'honorable combat'. Their own written affidavit(s) in another era, would have been sufficient to send them to the gallows at Nuremburg. If the bomb or anything better had existed at the time, 'Ol 'Cump' would have used it against his former West Point classmates even as former artillery captain "Harry' Truman did not hesitate when presented with similar options eighty years later. Rule one of warfare: 'Modified Sasquatches' are nasty and ultimately there are no rules...even as the cut marks on Neanderthal fossils attests to the hearty appetites of Cro-Magnons.:timeout:

[Admiral Halsey]

Here's one that should get the brain sweating. What if the Baltic Project took place? Link for a bit of info since I doubt anyone has ever heard of this before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Project

[Admiral Halsey]

So no takers?

[Oberon]

I can't see it working, taking Berlin does not equal victory, not when there is a standing German army in the field. It will be a great victory for publicity, but the resources put into it will have to have been taken from somewhere else more important, like the Western front. The German army would redirect resources from elsewhere, probably the Russian front and push the army back into the sea. It would be good for morale and publicity, but strategically fairly pointless.

[Raptor1]

There's no way this sort of operation would have been launched, let alone succeeded. It would have necessitated the complete annihilation (or at least disabling) of the Hochseeflotte just for the landing and supply to be possible, as well as numerous preparations which would have been far beyond the Allies' resources at the time. Even in World War II mounting an amphibious operation on this scale was difficult, let alone World War I. Meanwhile, Germany could redeploy forces by railway to stop and destroy the invasion force with ease.

This plan sounds like exactly the same logic behind the Gallipoli Campaign, only vastly less practical than even that well-known disaster.

[Admiral Halsey]

Thought i'd do a funny one this time. What if surgery was like it is in the game Surgeon Simulator 2013?(For the who don't know what that game is do a quick Google and YouTube search.)

[Jimbuna]

There's no way this sort of operation would have been launched, let alone succeeded. It would have necessitated the complete annihilation (or at least disabling) of the Hochseeflotte just for the landing and supply to be possible, as well as numerous preparations which would have been far beyond the Allies' resources at the time. Even in World War II mounting an amphibious operation on this scale was difficult, let alone World War I. Meanwhile, Germany could redeploy forces by railway to stop and destroy the invasion force with ease.

This plan sounds like exactly the same logic behind the Gallipoli Campaign, only vastly less practical than even that well-known disaster.

Agreed and most definitely re the Gallipoli Campaign :yep:

[Admiral Halsey]

Thought i'd do a funny one this time. What if surgery was like it is in the game Surgeon Simulator 2013?(For the who don't know what that game is do a quick Google and YouTube search.)

Bumping.

[Admiral Halsey]

Thought i'd do a funny one this time. What if surgery was like it is in the game Surgeon Simulator 2013?(For the who don't know what that game is do a quick Google and YouTube search.)

Last bump before I post another scenario. Was hoping this would get some response though.

[Platapus]

Last bump before I post another scenario. Was hoping this would get some response though.

If you have to keep bumping to keep a thread active, perhaps it is time to let the thread die in peace. :yep:

[Admiral Halsey]

If you have to keep bumping to keep a thread active, perhaps it is time to let the thread die in peace. :yep:

Not yet. I think the thing just keeps getting buried under other threads. When I first posted the question and first bumped it within 30 minutes at least 7-12 other threads had been posted in. Plus this isn't the most exciting AH question so it might not be drumming up as much interest.

[Admiral Halsey]

New question. What if Yamamoto wasn't killed? Discus the subsequent butterflies right here.

[tater]

War possibly ends sooner, as Yamamoto was a "meh" admiral. He'd likely have come up with yet another scheme to force "decisive victory" which he would also lose.

[mapuc]

He was a great strategist that for sure. The question is, would his survival have changed the outcome?

That's a big no. Maybe they would have won some more battles, but that's all.

Then it is the morale that's another story.

I could be wrong.

Markus

[Admiral Halsey]

War possibly ends sooner, as Yamamoto was a "meh" admiral. He'd likely have come up with yet another scheme to force "decisive victory" which he would also lose.

Meh my butt. Midway was a close run and if one or two things bounce Japan's way the US loses the battle.

[tater]

He was a great strategist that for sure. The question is, would his survival have changed the outcome?

That's a big no. Maybe they would have won some more battles, but that's all.

Then it is the morale that's another story.

I could be wrong.

Markus

He was a terrible strategist. Any japanese war plan (strategic) required a short war. His strategy was to design an attack that was certain to create virtually homicidal rage on the part of the United States. That Japan would lose a long war with the US was a foregone conclusion (no one in the USN or IJN doubted this, before or during the war, we basically fought a slightly altered War Plan Orange, designed long before the war). Any attack had to result in us wanting to negotiate. A sneak attack would not do this---even had the declaration of war happened just minutes before (seconds?) as planned it would have been seen as underhanded.

His only hope strategically would have been to avoid the US entirely, and couch the war as a war of liberation from European colonialism (which an isolationist USA might have swallowed).

[tater]

Meh my butt. Midway was a close run and if one or two things bounce Japan's way the US loses the battle.

Losing Midway might have delayed the US by a few months in terms of victory, that's it. The CVs that would crush the IJN were already being built (they were ordered before the war started). Losing all three CVs at Midway (Enterprise, Hornet, and Yorktown) would have made no major long-term difference. The IJN had no capability to invade Hawaii, and Midway would have been an albatross around their necks. We could bomb it daily with ease, and they'd have been hard-pressed to keep it even marginally supplied. The Fleet boats would have decimated resupply ships (nice, deep water to hide, too).

BTW, Midway was not a case of the USN as the underdog, it was closer to an even match (our CVs embarked more aircraft, and we had Midway itself, so we actually had more airpower there than the Kido Butai).

Yamamoto was overly complex tactically, and didn't learn the lesson he unknowingly taught everyone else. Concentration of force (airpower in this case). The Kido Butai with all 6 CVs was a force to be reckoned with. Breaking it up was the death of it. Sending his attack in 3 groups incapable of mutual support was nothing short of idiotic (4 groups if you count the Aleutians).

[tater]

As a reality check. The US built 18 carriers in 1942 (mostly CVEs). We built 65 in 1943.

Losing 3 would not have been as much of a disaster as you might think. A counterfactual where the IJN wins must assume some reasonable losses on their part (at the very least pilots, which were for the IJN basically irreplaceable from the start due to their training doctrine). Any japanese losses are permanent, any US losses are very temporary.

They needed to win the war by summer of '42. Negotiated peace, over by then, or they are certain to lose.

[Admiral Halsey]

As a reality check. The US built 18 carriers in 1942 (mostly CVEs). We built 65 in 1943.

Losing 3 would not have been as much of a disaster as you might think. A counterfactual where the IJN wins must assume some reasonable losses on their part (at the very least pilots, which were for the IJN basically irreplaceable from the start due to their training doctrine). Any japanese losses are permanent, any US losses are very temporary.

They needed to win the war by summer of '42. Negotiated peace, over by then, or they are certain to lose.

Ah but here's the rub with all those carriers being built. You still need to train the crew and pilots which takes another few month before you can put them into battle. It wasn't until May of 43 that the USS Essex made it into the Pacific which was the year that America's industrial might finally flexed its muscle. With only two carriers that we could actually count on until then(The Sargatoa and the old Ranger) Yamamoto would've been able to focus all his efforts on knocking Australia out by blockading the nation. Plus the Guadalcanal campaign would obviously need to be postponed thus giving Japan another way to cut off Australia's lifeline. I'm not saying he'd succeed in knocking Australia out but until mid-late 43 Australia would be hanging by a thread though.

[tater]

Ah but here's the rub with all those carriers being built. You still need to train the crew and pilots which takes another few month before you can put them into battle. It wasn't until May of 43 that the USS Essex made it into the Pacific which was the year that America's industrial might finally flexed its muscle. With only two carriers that we could actually count on until then(The Sargatoa and the old Ranger) Yamamoto would've been able to focus all his efforts on knocking Australia out by blockading the nation. Plus the Guadalcanal campaign would obviously need to be postponed thus giving Japan another way to cut off Australia's lifeline. I'm not saying he'd succeed in knocking Australia out but until mid-late 43 Australia would be hanging by a thread though.

We were ramping up. The CVs left Guadalcanal anyway (to the chagrin of the forces there). Jeep carriers could have ferried aircraft in August. Australia was never in japanese planning, so your counterfactual needs to then invent that as well. The IJA and IJN had a pathological relationship, and the IJN doesn't invade Australia alone. Their closest goal was Port Moresby.

A Midway win does little for Japan. they are then saddled with Midway, which they could not hope to defend. Their CVs would have to leave their air groups there to defend it. Unlike the USN, which has air groups that rotated, IJN air groups were organic to their carriers. The US had plenty of carrier aircrews, an excess in fact, even in mid '42. Essex was commissioned in December '42, they'd have accelerated her movement into combat. The notion that we lose 3 CVs at Midway is actually pretty far-fetched, though. They never spotted Hornet and Enterprise, and Yorktown was sunk by a submarine (she'd have certainly made it to pearl otherwise). The US won a spectacular victory in SPITE of many mistakes. The IJN needed to make ZERO mistakes for a similar victory the other way. Any partial victory (trade of a few CVs) is a US victory.

If Guadalcanal was delayed, Midway becomes the new deathtrap for IJN aircrews, BTW, that or they abandon it.

Every single IJN loss in ww2 was critical, no USN loss in ww2 was critical.

[tater]

On topic, had Yamamoto not been a crap admiral, the surface forces would have been close enough to matter. In one large group, their AAA fire might have reduced CV losses. Some large surface units might have been spotted and attacked instead of CVs, similarly diluting damage to the only ships there that mattered, the CVs.

Midway would have been a much closer thing had Yamamoto been less wed to his crazy split up forces he seemed to love so much.

Related to post-Midway counterfactuals, the US is still reading the IJN's mail, so our fewer CVs can be used where most useful, avoiding places where they are overmatched since we know where the IJN is operating due to signals intel and code breaking.

[Admiral Halsey]

We were ramping up. The CVs left Guadalcanal anyway (to the chagrin of the forces there). Jeep carriers could have ferried aircraft in August. Australia was never in japanese planning, so your counterfactual needs to then invent that as well. The IJA and IJN had a pathological relationship, and the IJN doesn't invade Australia alone. Their closest goal was Port Moresby.

A Midway win does little for Japan. they are then saddled with Midway, which they could not hope to defend. Their CVs would have to leave their air groups there to defend it. Unlike the USN, which has air groups that rotated, IJN air groups were organic to their carriers. The US had plenty of carrier aircrews, an excess in fact, even in mid '42. Essex was commissioned in December '42, they'd have accelerated her movement into combat. The notion that we lose 3 CVs at Midway is actually pretty far-fetched, though. They never spotted Hornet and Enterprise, and Yorktown was sunk by a submarine (she'd have certainly made it to pearl otherwise). The US won a spectacular victory in SPITE of many mistakes. The IJN needed to make ZERO mistakes for a similar victory the other way. Any partial victory (trade of a few CVs) is a US victory.

If Guadalcanal was delayed, Midway becomes the new deathtrap for IJN aircrews, BTW, that or they abandon it.

Every single IJN loss in ww2 was critical, no USN loss in ww2 was critical.

Australia never in Japanese planning!!!??? THEY WERE PLANNING ON ATTACKING/BLOCKADING AUSTRALIA AFTER MIDWAY!!! Admittedly this was still in the planning stage during the Midway battle but they were planning on doing something with Australia. Most likely they would've gone after Port Moresby first though as the jumping off point for whatever they had planned for Australia.

[Oberon]

Japan could sink every ship in the US navy and still would lose the war, the Pacific war was won in the factories as much as it was in the battlefield. Japan had no way to counter the zerg rush of American production. Good or bad admiral, Yamamoto saw that straight away and knew that eventual defeat was inevitable.

[Admiral Halsey]

Japan could sink every ship in the US navy and still would lose the war, the Pacific war was won in the factories as much as it was in the battlefield. Japan had no way to counter the zerg rush of American production. Good or bad admiral, Yamamoto saw that straight away and knew that eventual defeat was inevitable.

No arguing with that.

[Dread Knot]

Australia never in Japanese planning!!!??? THEY WERE PLANNING ON ATTACKING/BLOCKADING AUSTRALIA AFTER MIDWAY!!! Admittedly this was still in the planning stage during the Midway battle but they were planning on doing something with Australia. Most likely they would've gone after Port Moresby first though as the jumping off point for whatever they had planned for Australia.

Even had Japan secured a victory at Midway, no amount of territory in the South Pacific that she would have captured could solve it's basic strategic dilemma. Namely, that the industrial heartlands of her greatest opponents were out of reach. Territorial indulgences like seizing Port Moresby or the New Hebrides or Fiji in an attempt to isolate Australia were ultimately futile, in that they extended the Japanese defensive perimeter for little return. There was nothing in that part of the South Pacific worth seizing in terms of oil resources or factories. Nothing that could help Japanese shipyards to build carriers faster, or slow down those carriers the US was already building. The primitive airfields and ports taken would have to be garrisoned, improved and supplied, stretching Japan's already slender shipping resources. If anything, occupying those islands would have made Japanese supply lines even more vulnerable when the hammer blows began coming in 1944.

Also, given that the Japanese Imperial Army was still focused on it's own private quagmire in China which consumed the vast majority of its strength, it's also doubtful where the manpower for such a campaign would have come from. The IJA released eleven divisions to conquer the new Japanese Empire in 1941. This represented about a fifth of the Army's total manpower. Given that their stinginess had apparently paid for itself in the opening campaign, they were loathe to release any further forces than they had to.

[tater]

Australia never in Japanese planning!!!??? THEY WERE PLANNING ON ATTACKING/BLOCKADING AUSTRALIA AFTER MIDWAY!!! Admittedly this was still in the planning stage during the Midway battle but they were planning on doing something with Australia. Most likely they would've gone after Port Moresby first though as the jumping off point for whatever they had planned for Australia.

Source. Port Moresby was the attempt to blockade by having a base for ships and aircraft along the lines of communication.

They talked a couple times about Hawaii at the IGHQ, too, but there were no serious operational plans to invade Hawaii, and there were no serious operational plans to invade Australia, Tojo and the Army were against it. Nothing more than suggestions at meetings by junior officers.

On topic, what does this have to do with how lousy a strategic admiral Yamamoto was?

He was not a tactical admiral, he was their Nimitz, the big picture guy. He was lousy. Pearl harbor was a minor tactical success (they only sank a few, the rest were refloated) and a strategic disaster. PH unambiguously lost WW2 for them that morning as there was now ZERO chance of a negotiated peace. The sortie in the Indian Ocean was great, but had no real strategic goal (wasted opportunity). Coral Sea was a poor decision (they'd have won that with concentration instead of piecemeal use of force, so bad strategic planning). Midway was overly complex, and had as the only goal luring out the US fleet (which it did and they lost).

Yamamoto is lionized primarily because of PH (wrongly), and because he has a number of statements that accurately reflected the problems Japan had with a war vs the US. These were in fact widely held ideas within the IJN because there were self-evidently true to anyone who looked.

The IGHQ estimated Japan's chances in the upcoming war with the US at around 10% in a prewar meeting (from an interview with a staff officer post war quoted in Combined Fleet: Decoded). PH did everything possible to reduce that chase to 0%. The same people estimated that failure carried a substantial chance of "national death." Maybe Yamamoto was great because he designed a war that should have ended early (with japanese defeat) to save lives?

[TarJak]

Source.

They talked a couple times about Hawaii at the IGHQ, too, but there were no serious operational plans to invade Hawaii, and there were no serious operational plans to invade Australia, Tojo and the Army were against it. Nothing more than suggestions at meetings by junior officers.
Planning was mooted by Yamamoto but dismissed by Tojo: http://www.ozatwar.com/japsland/invade01.htm

There are several stories about Japanese landings in Australia but only one exploratory landing in Western Australia which has been substantiated:
http://www.ozatwar.com/japsland/japsland.htm

[Dread Knot]

Planning was mooted by Yamamoto but dismissed by Tojo: http://www.ozatwar.com/japsland/invade01.htm

There are several stories about Japanese landings in Australia but only one exploratory landing in Western Australia which has been substantiated:
http://www.ozatwar.com/japsland/japsland.htm

Tojo had more strategic sense than Yamamoto in this regard.

General Tojo was concerned that the Japanese merchant fleet was extended to its limit and the Americans could readily divert their B-17 Flying Fortresses to Sydney to destroy the invading forces.
A Japanese invasion of Northern Australia would have had some propaganda value, but like in the Japanese occupation of the Aleutians, it would have been a question of where do we go from here? In 1942 there were no rail lines or even decent roads connecting Darwin to the rest of the continent. Sydney, Perth and Brisbane are where you need to go. That means more amphibious landings, consuming more shipping and Australia had several superb infantry divisions with which to defend itself.

[tater]

Planning was mooted by Yamamoto but dismissed by Tojo: http://www.ozatwar.com/japsland/invade01.htm

There are several stories about Japanese landings in Australia but only one exploratory landing in Western Australia which has been substantiated:
http://www.ozatwar.com/japsland/japsland.htm

No operational plans means it was not happening any time soon. The japanese didn't extemporize such things. The assault on Malaya was very well planned, long in advance (and was an incredible act of generalship once started, they did everything right, and exploited all the British mistakes--of which there where many---on the fly. Yama****a was amazing (really, forum filter? Yamash-ita.).

Anyway, any such invasion would happen only with Army support, or not at all, and they'd not do so without Port Moresby first I think. 6 months after PH, the Essex class CVs start hitting the PTO (we would've accelerated them if we lost all 3 CVs at Midway, bet on it).

There is no plausible scenario where Japan wins post PH. I can imagine one where they avoid the US entirely, but FDR really wanted to get involved, so even that might not have worked. Yamamoto KNEW this, too, his quotes are famous. Why then did he not propose strategic moves that would result in victory, instead of guarantee prolonged war (which they knew they had zero chance of winning)?

[Admiral Halsey]

Source. Port Moresby was the attempt to blockade by having a base for ships and aircraft along the lines of communication.

They talked a couple times about Hawaii at the IGHQ, too, but there were no serious operational plans to invade Hawaii, and there were no serious operational plans to invade Australia, Tojo and the Army were against it. Nothing more than suggestions at meetings by junior officers.

On topic, what does this have to do with how lousy a strategic admiral Yamamoto was?

He was not a tactical admiral, he was their Nimitz, the big picture guy. He was lousy. Pearl harbor was a minor tactical success (they only sank a few, the rest were refloated) and a strategic disaster. PH unambiguously lost WW2 for them that morning as there was now ZERO chance of a negotiated peace. The sortie in the Indian Ocean was great, but had no real strategic goal (wasted opportunity). Coral Sea was a poor decision (they'd have won that with concentration instead of piecemeal use of force, so bad strategic planning). Midway was overly complex, and had as the only goal luring out the US fleet (which it did and they lost).

Yamamoto is lionized primarily because of PH (wrongly), and because he has a number of statements that accurately reflected the problems Japan had with a war vs the US. These were in fact widely held ideas within the IJN because there were self-evidently true to anyone who looked.

The IGHQ estimated Japan's chances in the upcoming war with the US at around 10% in a prewar meeting (from an interview with a staff officer post war quoted in Combined Fleet: Decoded). PH did everything possible to reduce that chase to 0%. The same people estimated that failure carried a substantial chance of "national death." Maybe Yamamoto was great because he designed a war that should have ended early (with japanese defeat) to save lives?

His job for the Pearl attack was to figure out a way to knock the threat of the US Fleet out of the war long enough for the Army to capture Southeastern Asia which no one can doubt he did. Also he never wanted to go to war with the US because he knew exactly what would happen in the long run. As for Midway that was more victory fever clouding their judgment then anything else. In an early wargame for Midway they almost exactly replicated what happened at Midway but the referees dismissed the results due to it being "impossible" for Japan to be surprised. As for Australia he knew they couldn't invade it so once Port Morsbey and the airfield on Guadalcanal was finished he'd try to starve Australia out of the war.

[Admiral Halsey]

Ok i've got a good one for you guys. What if instead of going after Russia Hitler instead went for an all out Mediterranean strategy?

[Oberon]

1943

http://wodumedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Red-Army-photographer-Yevgeny-Khaldei-center-in-Berlin-with-Soviet-forces-near-the-Brandenburg-Gate-in-May-of-1945.-Waralbum.ru-650x431.jpg

[STEED]

Ok i've got a good one for you guys. What if instead of going after Russia Hitler instead went for an all out Mediterranean strategy?

Still face the same problem of logistics.

Barbarossa was a all out last throw of the dice but as there are so many factors on this one I'm not getting bogged down. Read many books on Barbarossa as I do find it a interest, as for the scenario I just pointed out one big issue and I will let everyone else chip in on other issues.

[Raptor1]

Ok i've got a good one for you guys. What if instead of going after Russia Hitler instead went for an all out Mediterranean strategy?

There's no reason for Hitler to have any interest in the Mediterranean as a grand strategic objective in itself. 'Mare Nostrum' was an Italian goal and the vast majority of cases in which German forces were deployed to the Mediterranean theater was only in support of Italian operations. Meanwhile, Hitler was very much ideologically committed to an invasion of the Soviet Union.

[Aktungbby]

:agree::sign_yeah: Indeed! The last thing the Fuhrer wanted was to be "another frog sitting around a pond croaking" as described by the philosopher Plato: He famously described the Greeks living round the Aegean "like frogs around a pond". The Aegean Sea was later invaded by the Persians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire) and the Romans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic), and inhabited by the Byzantine Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire), the Bulgarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarians), the Venetians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Venice), the Genoese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Genoa), the Seljuq Turks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seljuq_Turks), and the Ottoman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire). and its seaways were the means of contact among several diverse civilizations of the Eastern Mediterranean. Nothing has changed and the politics of the Iron Pact destroyed Germany as much as anything else. Not to be out-done, the Allies proceeded to the Italian 'soft underbelly' and North African Campaigns themselves. If any thing, WWII in the Mediterranean proved Plato right; a lot of guys croaked for nothing. As military might desperately needed for the strategic thrust elsewhere; notably Doenitz's strategically oriented Atlantic U-boots, were hopelessly frittered away in support of Mussolini's pipe-dream of a renewed Roman Empire...over the miserable tactics of land warfare around the pond.

[TarJak]

One to give a little thought to:

Hitler is killed in the 1936 assassination attempt at Nuremberg. Goering takes the reins of the Nazi Party and becomes Fuhrer. Strategic goals are now very different and he decides to build a peacefully strong Germany with better relations with the western powers and even Poland. He knows Stalin is the major threat to this peaceful Europe. By 1939, we've seen no annexation of Czech territory, no Anschluss in Austria but the west has allowed the reoccupation of the Rhineland and a relaxation of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles.

Germany is enjoying a golden industrial age but rumblings from Moscow indicate they may be wanting to move on either Finland or the Baltic states or even Poland.

[Oberon]

Could see a UK, Germany pact against the Soviet Union, with France reluctantly being dragged in to protect Poland. Communism was mostly seen as a greater threat to world peace than Fascism anyway.

[mapuc]

It's no doubt if Some one else than Hitler was in charge the history would take an another heading.

Maybe this leader would be harder than Hitler, or softer.

Markus

[TarJak]

Could see a UK, Germany pact against the Soviet Union, with France reluctantly being dragged in to protect Poland. Communism was mostly seen as a greater threat to world peace than Fascism anyway.It means the crisis that swallowed Chamberlain either does't happen or happens for different reasons

It's no doubt if Some one else than Hitler was in charge the history would take an another heading.

Maybe this leader would be harder than Hitler, or softer.

Markus
It is Herman Goering we're talking about. Until von Ribbentrop opened his trap, Goering was quite friendly with the Polish PM pre-war and held a lot of influence with him.

[Aktungbby]

Too bad you didn't back up the date a few years; My money would be on Ernst Röhm of the 1,000,000+ member SA; Wihout Adolf, Himmler and Göering were puppets or eye candy. HItler was aware of Röhm's homosexuality. At this point they were so close that they addressed each other as du (the German familiar form of "you" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-V_distinction)). No other top Nazi leader enjoyed that privilege, and their close association led to rumors that Hitler himself was homosexual. Röhm was the only Nazi leader who dared to address Hitler by his first name "Adolf" rather than "mein Führer." In 1934, as part of the Night of the Long Knives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives), he was executed on Heinrich Himmler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Himmler)'s orders as a potential rival. He must have still existed as a big political problem however even in death: In an attempt to erase Röhm from German history, all known copies of the 1933 propaganda film Der Sieg des Glaubens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Sieg_des_Glaubens) (Victory of Faith), in which Röhm appeared, were ordered destroyed in 1934. Der Sieg des Glaubens was long thought to have been lost until a single copy was found in storage in Britain in the 1990s. The 1935 film Triumph of the Will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_of_the_Will) (Triumph des Willens), produced in 1934, showed the new Nazi hierarchy, with the SS as the Nazis' premier uniformed paramilitary group and Röhm replaced by Viktor Lutze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Lutze) as the far less powerful new head of the SA.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Bundesarchiv_Bild_102-14886%2C_Kurt_Daluege%2C_Heinrich_Himmler%2C_Ernst _R%C3%B6hm.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Bundesarchiv_Bild_102-14886%2C_Kurt_Daluege%2C_Heinrich_Himmler%2C_Ernst _R%C3%B6hm.jpg) nothing like a 'good buddy'(Himmler) lookn' over your shoulder!? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%B6hm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%B6hm)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1982-159-21A%2C_N%C3%BCrnberg%2C_Reichsparteitag%2C_Hitler_ und_R%C3%B6hm.jpg/362px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1982-159-21A%2C_N%C3%BCrnberg%2C_Reichsparteitag%2C_Hitler_ und_R%C3%B6hm.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1982-159-21A%2C_N%C3%BCrnberg%2C_Reichsparteitag%2C_Hitler_ und_R%C3%B6hm.jpg)<the handsome couple -1933

[mapuc]

It means the crisis that swallowed Chamberlain either does't happen or happens for different reasons


It is Herman Goering we're talking about. Until von Ribbentrop opened his trap, Goering was quite friendly with the Polish PM pre-war and held a lot of influence with him.

I know my post was a general statement.

Markus

[Jimbuna]

Could see a UK, Germany pact against the Soviet Union, with France reluctantly being dragged in to protect Poland. Communism was mostly seen as a greater threat to world peace than Fascism anyway.

But not if/when Churchill was at the helm, surely.

[STEED]

Backed the Nazis never, backed Imperial Germany maybe.

[Oberon]

But not if/when Churchill was at the helm, surely.

You'd be surprised, Churchill hated the Communists as much as he hated Hitler, the night before Barbarossa took place he referred to Stalin in passing as the devil "If Hitler invaded hell I would at least make a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons" :03:
This is the guy who wanted to carry on the war when Germany was defeated and push east to drive the Soviets out of Europe through Operation Unthinkable.
I think that if the Nazis played their foreign relations game better than Churchill would ally with them against the Soviet Union, and it would be painted as the great crusade against the biggest evil facing the world, the Communist horde.

The shadow of the 1926 General Strike still hung over the UK, and the panic of the Invergordon mutiny, communism was seen as the scourge of Europe, and if the Soviet Union were to launch offensive action, then the perfect cassus belli would be presented to the western powers on a plate.

[TarJak]

You'd be surprised, Churchill hated the Communists as much as he hated Hitler, when Barbarossa took place he referred to Stalin in passing as the devil "If Hitler invaded hell I would at least make a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons" :03:
This is the guy who wanted to carry on the war when Germany was defeated and push east to drive the Soviets out of Europe through Operation Unthinkable.
I think that if the Nazis played their foreign relations game better than Churchill would ally with them against the Soviet Union, and it would be painted as the great crusade against the biggest evil facing the world, the Communist horde.

The shadow of the 1926 General Strike still hung over the UK, and the panic of the Invergordon mutiny, communism was seen as the scourge of Europe, and if the Soviet Union were to launch offensive action, then the perfect cassus belli would be presented to the western powers on a plate.

Well inot 1938 Goering was trying to convince the UK to stay out of the conflict that was brewing. Don;t forget in this timeline Chamberlain would most likely still be the PM in the UK as the crisis that saw him resign won;t happen. Unless he screwed up something else, he'd still be at the helm hoping to avert any sort of conflict.

If Germany played nice with France and the UK and Poland, there is even a likelyhood of Poland joining the Anti-Comintern pact as a protection against Soviet aggression. A lot of people forget that they were a dictatorship prior to WWII.

[Admiral Halsey]

I decree that this thread shall live! Also I get a brand new type of AH for you guys. Ok it's present day when all of a sudden reports start coming in from Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia. It seems that somehow Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan cira 1942 have suddenly appeared and replaced modern day Japan and Germany. They also brought with them all the land they had taken over at the height of their power, their entire armies, air forces and navies. After the "HOLY **** THE NAZI'S ARE BACK!" subsides what ends up happening?

[Admiral Halsey]

Really thought this'd get a response by now.

[mapuc]

"replaced modern day Japan and Germany" I really don't understand this sentence

Does it mean they will replace it with their "modern stuff" which they had under their own time

Markus

[Admiral Halsey]

"replaced modern day Japan and Germany" I really don't understand this sentence

Does it mean they will replace it with their "modern stuff" which they had under their own time

Markus

Basically it means exactly what it says. Modern day Japan and Germany suddenly get replaced by the Japan and Germany of 1942. This includes all territory that the 1942 versions own as well.

[mapuc]

Basically it means exactly what it says. Modern day Japan and Germany suddenly get replaced by the Japan and Germany of 1942. This includes all territory that the 1942 versions own as well.

It will be a very short story for them, their "1942 military weapon against USA, England and other not occupied countries with their moderne military weapon

The outcome will only lead to a big defeat for Germany and Japan.

Then we have the people living in Germany, Japan and their occupied countries how will they react ?

AND how will Israel react?

Markus

[Admiral Halsey]

AND how will Israel react?Markus

There's the biggest question. How would Israel react if all of a sudden the Nazi's at the height of their power suddenly reappeared? I've found 3 lines of thought in this scenario. They nuke Berlin, they kill Hitler in a Mossad strike or my personal favorite they kidnap Hitler, bring him to Jerusalem and try him for crimes against humanity.

[mapuc]

There's the biggest question. How would Israel react if all of a sudden the Nazi's at the height of their power suddenly reappeared? I've found 3 lines of thought in this scenario. They nuke Berlin, they kill Hitler in a Mossad strike or my personal favorite they kidnap Hitler, bring him to Jerusalem and try him for crimes against humanity.


Here's something more to your answer

Some of the Muslim countries around Israel, suddenly see a big opportunity and attack Israel, now that their "old friend" has returned.

Markus

[Admiral Halsey]

Here's something more to your answer

Some of the Muslim countries around Israel, suddenly see a big opportunity and attack Israel, now that their "old friend" has returned.

Markus

I doubt they'd see the Nazi's as friends here. They didn't think highly of the Arab's either.

[mapuc]

I doubt they'd see the Nazi's as friends here. They didn't think highly of the Arab's either.

?? Thinking is Halsey right have I remembered things wrong when read in my history book about WWII and how some Muslim countries, tribes and groups helped Germany in Northern Africa.

Markus

[mapuc]

Another thing vill these resistance groups resurrect, now their country is under occupation once again ?

Markus

[Admiral Halsey]

Another thing vill these resistance groups resurrect, now their country is under occupation once again ?

Markus

Oh I see what you're thinking. No what is happening is the the countries with everyone in them are replaced by the Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and the people in them. So France is now as it was in 1942 with the people alive at the time have been transported into the modern day world. You see the Modern countries get replaced completely and this includes people.