How would WW2 have turned out if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor? (1930s, tanks)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, he's definitely got a point there. But by the late 30s, there really wasn't much the US or Britain could realistically had done to prevent the war. Japan had already invaded Manchuria in 1931, and the curse it was cast. The West's imperialist aggression over the previous century or so had set the stage for Japan's expansionist strategy, and I don't think the West could or realistically would have done anything to unring the bell.
Well I talked to my other friends about it and they definitely have a strong stance against the US's decision to nuke Japan. Maybe it's a Canadian thing since all my friends are Canadian but the conversation was brought up again in a larger group and they concurred that the nuking of Japan was morally wrong, and when I tried to point out some of the points made on here, they said that no matter how bad a war gets, you don't use nuclear weapons under any circumstances, period. One of them said even if not nuking means the war will get even worse, you just be men and deal with it he said.
So I guess that is some people's opinions on it...
Ever hear of the debacle involved in losing Norway?
As the Germans were there first, I fail to see how the British lost Norway in the first place. The British pretty well destroyed the German surface fleet at Norway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. In-Between
Defeating the Reich would have involved British troops marching into Berlin, and there was no conceivable way y'all were going to make that happen by yourselves.
The British empire had a manpower pool of 40 million. 2.6 million marched into Burma.
Well I talked to my other friends about it and they definitely have a strong stance against the US's decision to nuke Japan. Maybe it's a Canadian thing since all my friends are Canadian but the conversation was brought up again in a larger group and they concurred that the nuking of Japan was morally wrong, and when I tried to point out some of the points made on here, they said that no matter how bad a war gets, you don't use nuclear weapons under any circumstances, period. One of them said even if not nuking means the war will get even worse, you just be men and deal with it he said.
So I guess that is some people's opinions on it...
And it's a very valid opinion. I can't say I share it, but I can't say it isn't valid, either. I just don't see an American president, after 3 1/2 years of vicious, ugly war and a quarter of a million American casualties, willingly committing his country to take another 1,000,000 when he had the means to prevent it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
The British empire had a manpower pool of 40 million. 2.6 million marched into Burma.
I wondered how long it was going to be before we got to the "40,000,000 man army, 40,000,000 man army, 40,000,000 man army" part.
That always marks the point where rational discussion ends. But just for the heck of it, how were they going to get ashore in France? The 400,000 ship navy? Or were they going to walk all the way from India, out of their burning love for all the white people in Britain?
Last edited by Mr. In-Between; 03-10-2019 at 06:12 AM..
And it's a very valid opinion. I can't say I share it, but I can't say it isn't valid, either. I just don't see an American president, after 3 1/2 years of vicious, ugly war and a quarter of a million American casualties, willingly committing his country to take another 1,000,000 when he had the means to prevent it.
FDR might have done that. Remember he was a "world citizen" or "world leader" much like Obama. Truman was cut from similar cloth as Trump; he would do what he thought was right for the U.S., damn the torpedoes.
Well I talked to my other friends about it and they definitely have a strong stance against the US's decision to nuke Japan. Maybe it's a Canadian thing since all my friends are Canadian but the conversation was brought up again in a larger group and they concurred that the nuking of Japan was morally wrong, and when I tried to point out some of the points made on here, they said that no matter how bad a war gets, you don't use nuclear weapons under any circumstances, period. One of them said even if not nuking means the war will get even worse, you just be men and deal with it he said.
So I guess that is some people's opinions on it...
For Japan, US nuclear weapons meant that a single bomber could destroy the heart of a city. This was a real problem, because IJ had lost most of its pilots & groundcrew in the war, & was reserving what was left for suicide attacks - as well as suicide boat attacks. I don't recall that IJ had fighter aircraft capable of climbing to the B-29's cruising altitude, & I don't think they ever had flak guns that could reach that high either.
So after Hiroshima, any single bomber could cause a panic whenever one showed up over the IJ main islands. & the US (& Allies) had spent considerable resources, time & effort to develop nuclear weapons. If they could hasten ending the war, & sparing considerable Allied casualties, I can't see a US president refusing to use them.
As I recall, Canada's government was unhappy with the British high command in WWI. UK (the British Empire, of which Canada was a part) committed men (UK & allied) to massive ground attacks on German fortified positions, which didn't yield much ground, & caused enormous casualties among the attacking forces - including Canadian. These sacrifices caused domestic tension in Canada, & by the end of the war, Canada was taking a more independent line from UK, & in 1926, UK declared the Dominions to be independent states.
Picture a scenario in which the Soviet Union is so beaten down by Barbarossa that they sue for peace. And further, picture a scenario in which the United States is so enraged by Japan's sneak attack against Pearl Harbor (which wouldn't have happened if we followed my original post, sorry for the digression) that they focus all of their might against Japan and fail to intervene in the European war aside from sending convoys of supplies. Neither of these scenarios is entirely implausible, IMO. If both of them happened, do you suppose that the British could have held out against Hitler by themselves? Probably yes. But could they have defeated Nazi Germany on their own? I seriously doubt it.
I have always felt that Hitler, with his affinity for Anglos (including the US) believing them as fellow Aryans, should have focused all his attentions to the East.
The UK and others were OK that Germany recouped areas east, lost after WWI, for Lebensraum. So, after that was accomplished, he should have played into the West's fear of Communism (which was much more than their fear of Fascism), and sought to ally himself with the West and together fight to end Communism. This would have necessitated USSR moving all its forces heretofore facing Japan to the defense of its Western Front.
And now with the withdrawal of the Soviet threat to its west and US attentions now in Europe, Japan would not have attacked Pearl Harbor when it did.
And now the big 'what if':
Japan might even have joined the Allies to attack Russia from the east as she had originally planned. Assuming that Japan had not invaded China or Korea, but instead taken the "Northern Advance" into Russia through Manchukuo and the Maritime Province, to obtain its needed resources from the Asian mainland, Japan would not have proceeded with its fall-back plan, the 'Southern Advance" into the British, French, and Dutch colonies of Southeast Asia and in the Pacific.
Allying with Hitler!
Maybe it's not so far-fetched... remember we allied with Stalin, who was arguably more brutal than Hitler when it came to 'cleansing'. And it wasn't over after Berlin fell - the Cold War with the USSR brought us almost to the brink of global annihilation. Even General George S. Patton said that "America defeated the wrong enemy".
For Japan, US nuclear weapons meant that a single bomber could destroy the heart of a city. This was a real problem, because IJ had lost most of its pilots & groundcrew in the war, & was reserving what was left for suicide attacks - as well as suicide boat attacks. I don't recall that IJ had fighter aircraft capable of climbing to the B-29's cruising altitude, & I don't think they ever had flak guns that could reach that high either.
So after Hiroshima, any single bomber could cause a panic whenever one showed up over the IJ main islands. & the US (& Allies) had spent considerable resources, time & effort to develop nuclear weapons. If they could hasten ending the war, & sparing considerable Allied casualties, I can't see a US president refusing to use them.
As I recall, Canada's government was unhappy with the British high command in WWI. UK (the British Empire, of which Canada was a part) committed men (UK & allied) to massive ground attacks on German fortified positions, which didn't yield much ground, & caused enormous casualties among the attacking forces - including Canadian. These sacrifices caused domestic tension in Canada, & by the end of the war, Canada was taking a more independent line from UK, & in 1926, UK declared the Dominions to be independent states.
Well here is the thing though. They used the nukes to spare further allied casualties. But instead of using nukes, what if the casualties didn't attack at all, and just backed out, and let Asia fight it's own war. Would that been better than any further allies lost?
I have always felt that Hitler, with his affinity for Anglos (including the US) believing them as fellow Aryans, should have focused all his attentions to the East.
The UK and others were OK that Germany recouped areas east, lost after WWI, for Lebensraum. So, after that was accomplished, he should have played into the West's fear of Communism (which was much more than their fear of Fascism), and sought to ally himself with the West and together fight to end Communism. This would have necessitated USSR moving all its forces heretofore facing Japan to the defense of its Western Front.
And now with the withdrawal of the Soviet threat to its west and US attentions now in Europe, Japan would not have attacked Pearl Harbor when it did.
And now the big 'what if':
Japan might even have joined the Allies to attack Russia from the east as she had originally planned. Assuming that Japan had not invaded China or Korea, but instead taken the "Northern Advance" into Russia through Manchukuo and the Maritime Province, to obtain its needed resources from the Asian mainland, Japan would not have proceeded with its fall-back plan, the 'Southern Advance" into the British, French, and Dutch colonies of Southeast Asia and in the Pacific.
…
Did Hitler consider Anglos to be Aryans? Hard to believe, given how he prosecuted the war in the West - against France & UK. The French army was consumed, the BEF had to abandon all its heavy gear. & if Hitler were to seriously war on USSR & then ally with the West, he had to start by invading USSR, not leaving it for his funeral pyre.
UK European policy, TMK, was always to have a weak continental Europe, if @ all possible. The rise of a German Nazi militarized superstate would not have been acceptable.
Japan was already in Korea in 1895, annexed Korea in 1910. & was in China during the Boxer Uprising, & took over Germany's concessions in China after WWI. The IJ government was taken over by the young officers & their allies there. There were difficulties in trying to get resources out of the USSR (what did IJ get out of Korea? Manchuria? China?), which was one reason that IJ went south to secure oil & other resources.
Well here is the thing though. They used the nukes to spare further allied casualties. But instead of using nukes, what if the casualties didn't attack at all, and just backed out, and let Asia fight it's own war. Would that been better than any further allies lost?
We - the US & Allies - used nukes, naval engagements, subs, incendiary attacks on the principal cities of the Japanese home islands, sank their transports, naval gunfire on all coastal targets in reach, & blockade of the home islands. The nukes were only one component, & I believe the incendiary attacks caused more casualties & dislocations to military & civilian operations than the nukes - although that might have changed, if we'd had to continue dropping nuclear weapons.
WWII in PTO - from Korea to Manchuria to China, Philippines, the UK, Dutch, French colonies invaded & overrun - was essentially letting Asia fight it's own war. In the near term, that meant that IJ ran riot over everybody in sight. In the long run, the IJ Emperor backed away from the edge of the abyss - & just in time. We - the US specifically - didn't suffer all that loss of lives, military, civilian, & ships & other materiel to back off @ the last moment.
Yes. Initially, when Hitler tried to court the UK into an alliance, his propaganda praised the British as "proficient Aryan imperialists". He admired the British as an “Aryan” people whose ruthlessness subjected millions of brown and black skinned people to their rule. And British rule in India was to be the model for how the Germans would rule Russia. Later, when he realized he would have to fight the UK, his attitude changed. They were then denounced as "the Jew among the Aryan peoples".
In an interview of Adolf Hitler by George Sylvester Viereck in 1923, and published in Liberty magazine in July 1932 he said:
"We must retain our colonies and we must expand eastward. There was a time when we could have shared world dominion with England. Now we can stretch our cramped limbs only toward the east."
Aligned with Nazi Aryan myths, Hitler also romanticized Native Americans. He even wanted Goebbels’s to confer honorary Aryan status on Native American tribes.
Let's also remember that Hitler incorporated his eugenic ideas in his book Mein Kampf, which he had based on eugenic legislation for the sterilization of "defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States!
I always found it amazing that Hitler and his henchmen did not fit the Aryan 'Look' as none of them were tall, blond and blue-eyed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southwest88
The rise of a German ... superstate would not have been acceptable (to the UK).
Well they really must be sh**ting in their pants these days!
Quote:
Originally Posted by southwest88
Japan was already in Korea in 1895 annexed Korea in 1910. & was in China during the Boxer Uprising.
Hence my statement: "assuming that Japan had not invaded China or Korea". This was in order to respond to OP's question re Pearl Harbor. Because if Japan had been able to take the Northern Advance into USSR by bypassing China and Korea and while the USSR was battling my hypothetical Allies(UK, USA, France AND Germany) on her eastern front and the US was focused in Europe, Japan would not have attacked Pearl. Again - a big what if.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nukes, Canada & the UK, & war
