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.
I hate 'what if?" posts.
Once anyone starts spinning alternative war history around, any speculative outcome is as good as any other. The answer can be anything a person wants it to be.
How's this for an answer to the topic?
Yes. Germany conquered the British and won the war, but they couldn't keep all the territory they conquered, so their army was forced to flee to the moon using their new V-2 rockets.
Once on the moon, the army all died, and became zombies who made new weapons from the old materials they took with them and re-invaded Earth.
That's the plot of an actual movie. And that's how ridiculous these scenarios can become.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But I think it's worth noting that alternative history (i.e. "what-if") is not the same thing as science fiction. Alternative history concerns itself with things that could have plausibly happened within given historical parameters, even though they didn't. It isn't merely "anything a person wants it to be." Consider the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese launching a third strike, and targeting the oil tanks and repair facilities, is something that very plausibly could have happened in the historical event, but it didn't. The Japanese launching Godzilla to take out the American fleet is something that could not have happened in the historical event, and thus would fall to the realm of science fiction.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But I think it's worth noting that alternative history (i.e. "what-if") is not the same thing as science fiction. Alternative history concerns itself with things that could have plausibly happened within given historical parameters, even though they didn't. It isn't merely "anything a person wants it to be." Consider the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese launching a third strike, and targeting the oil tanks and repair facilities, is something that very plausibly could have happened in the historical event, but it didn't. The Japanese launching Godzilla to take out the American fleet is something that could not have happened in the historical event, and thus would fall to the realm of science fiction.
I hear you. I hate "what if" posts too. However, there are still some legitimate questions to be asked that require a certain amount of speculating.
One of my favorites is: What would have happened if Stanley Baldwin had been selected to replace Neville Chamberlain instead of Winston Churchill? Baldwin wanted to try and make a deal with Hitler. Churchill wisely saw the futility of this. Actually, this came very close to happening.
What I find frustrating are all those people who ask questions that are completely implausible. One of those questions that I have heard several times is: What if after defeating Hitler the allies had gone to war against the Soviet Union? This was utterly implausible because after making the supreme effort we did to defeat Hitler and the Japanese we weren't going to turn on an ally--the USSR--and go to war with them because we disagreed with them in terms of occupying eastern Europe.
I can tolerate alternative history to a point. However, there had better be some plausibility to the scenario that is suggested.
What I find frustrating are all those people who ask questions that are completely implausible. One of those questions that I have heard several times is: What if after defeating Hitler the allies had gone to war against the Soviet Union? This was utterly implausible because after making the supreme effort we did to defeat Hitler and the Japanese we weren't going to turn on an ally--the USSR--and go to war with them because we disagreed with them in terms of occupying eastern Europe.
Maybe, possibly, it would have been technically possible to go to war against the Soviet Union in 1945, but it would have been highly, highly unlikely. We would have had to go it alone, because our enemies were defeated and our allies were exhausted. Also, the American public was quite tired of the long war that had just ended and would not have had an appetite to launch another one, especially against an ally. (People who talk about this scenario are basically looking at the Cold War in hindsight and wondering what we could have done to win that war sooner. But the Cold War that we look back on in hindsight now, had not yet started in 1945.) So, while it might possibly have been remotely possible to do this, from an operational point of view, I don't think it's anything even close to a realistic scenario under the conditions that actually pertained in 1945.
Maybe, possibly, it would have been technically possible to go to war against the Soviet Union in 1945, but it would have been highly, highly unlikely. We would have had to go it alone, because our enemies were defeated and our allies were exhausted. Also, the American public was quite tired of the long war that had just ended and would not have had an appetite to launch another one, especially against an ally. (People who talk about this scenario are basically looking at the Cold War in hindsight and wondering what we could have done to win that war sooner. But the Cold War that we look back on in hindsight now, had not yet started in 1945.) So, while it might possibly have been remotely possible to do this, from an operational point of view, I don't think it's anything even close to a realistic scenario under the conditions that actually pertained in 1945.
It's too bad the Allies didn't occupy more of eastern Europe. The U.S. had a 700K attack force in Europe and could have pushed farther east. Some wanted to. Letting Stalin have so much of Europe led to untold misery for millions of people for decades to come.
Then there was his last minute declaration of war against Japan, to opportunistically seize as much territory in the Far East as possible. He even demanded a separate zone of occupation in Japan, which the Americans refused. Some unfortunate Japanese armies were made to surrender to the Soviets in northwest China, and they were taken to camps and mostly killed.
Thus began the Cold War, the Korean War, brief American supremacy, and Vietnam.
The world would have been a better place, had we finished the job in 1946.
It's too bad the Allies didn't occupy more of eastern Europe. The U.S. had a 700K attack force in Europe and could have pushed farther east. Some wanted to. Letting Stalin have so much of Europe led to untold misery for millions of people for decades to come.
Then there was his last minute declaration of war against Japan, to opportunistically seize as much territory in the Far East as possible. He even demanded a separate zone of occupation in Japan, which the Americans refused. Some unfortunate Japanese armies were made to surrender to the Soviets in northwest China, and they were taken to camps and mostly killed.
Thus began the Cold War, the Korean War, brief American supremacy, and Vietnam.
The world would have been a better place, had we finished the job in 1946.
Three conferences took place between the USSR, the USA, and the UK during World War II. I refer to Teheran, Yalta, and Potsdam. During both the Yalta and Potsdam Conference the USA was eager for the USSR to join in the war against Japan. It was understood that this was going to happen and all the allied powers believed in would shorten the war in the Pacific.
When the USSR did enter the war against Japan its armies invaded the Chinese province of Manchuria which had been a Japanese stronghold. The effect of this invasion in terms of getting Japan to surrender was significant. Emperor Hirohito acknowledged this in his message surrendering and accepting the terms of the allied "Potsdam Declaration" calling for unconditional surrender. Hirohito referred not only to the enemy using a "most cruel bomb", but also to the "general trends of the world turning against Japan". The latter statement clearly refers to the fact that the USSR which had been a neutral country in the conflict against Japan had now joined the war against it. Its possible without the Russian invasion that Japan might have chosen to continue the war.
What would happen in eastern Europe following the war was a tragedy that I think everyone wishes could have been avoided. However, even the USA was on board with Stalin invading Manchuria.
Then there was his last minute declaration of war against Japan, to opportunistically seize as much territory in the Far East as possible. He even demanded a separate zone of occupation in Japan, which the Americans refused. Some unfortunate Japanese armies were made to surrender to the Soviets in northwest China, and they were taken to camps and mostly killed.
It should be recalled that Stalin had pledged to enter the war against Japan 3 months after the war in Europe ended. As monstrously evil as he was, it must be said that he kept his word in this instance, right down to the very day.
Three conferences took place between the USSR, the USA, and the UK during World War II. I refer to Teheran, Yalta, and Potsdam. During both the Yalta and Potsdam Conference the USA was eager for the USSR to join in the war against Japan. It was understood that this was going to happen and all the allied powers believed in would shorten the war in the Pacific.
When the USSR did enter the war against Japan its armies invaded the Chinese province of Manchuria which had been a Japanese stronghold. The effect of this invasion in terms of getting Japan to surrender was significant. Emperor Hirohito acknowledged this in his message surrendering and accepting the terms of the allied "Potsdam Declaration" calling for unconditional surrender. Hirohito referred not only to the enemy using a "most cruel bomb", but also to the "general trends of the world turning against Japan". The latter statement clearly refers to the fact that the USSR which had been a neutral country in the conflict against Japan had now joined the war against it. Its possible without the Russian invasion that Japan might have chosen to continue the war.
What would happen in eastern Europe following the war was a tragedy that I think everyone wishes could have been avoided. However, even the USA was on board with Stalin invading Manchuria.
I highly doubt that. Japan could not have continued the war; their industrial base was nearly destroyed, and the two bombs were the final proof to even the most stubborn of the military regime that they had lost. The populace had already realized they had lost the war; after massive firebombing that killed hundreds of thousands of people, the Americans had started dropping notes warning the people of timing of the next bomb raid, to show them how they had totally lost control of the skies.
The armies stranded on mainland China and Manchuria were not just at war with the Nationalist Chinese, but also with Mao's guerrilla army, technically with the Americans (whose main role, as I understand it, was more of training and advising the Nationalist air force; Goldwater was involved in that for example), and now with Stalin's armies.
The Russian people were not excited about a new front, however; they had just lost twenty-five million people (probably no one at the time knew the actual numbers, and indeed even today that number is disputed; all we really know is that it's somewhere between 20 million as Western historians think, and 30 million as the Soviets claimed). They were exhausted, Hitler was beaten, Soviet army had marched into Berlin, and it was time to rebuild. Obviously, no one could argue with Stalin, but even he knew his country was running on fumes. And after Nagasaki, the Japanese knew they were beaten.
It was actually the Americans who wanted to stop; Okinawa was a very expensive operation and no one had the stomach for another brutal invasion, this time the Home Islands, which would likely have led to hundreds of thousands of casualties on both sides if the Japanese chose to go down fighting. But the Japanese were doubtless relieved, if humiliated, that the surrender finally was accepted.
It's too bad the Allies didn't occupy more of eastern Europe. The U.S. had a 700K attack force in Europe and could have pushed farther east. Some wanted to. Letting Stalin have so much of Europe led to untold misery for millions of people for decades to come.
Then there was his last minute declaration of war against Japan, to opportunistically seize as much territory in the Far East as possible. He even demanded a separate zone of occupation in Japan, which the Americans refused. Some unfortunate Japanese armies were made to surrender to the Soviets in northwest China, and they were taken to camps and mostly killed.
Thus began the Cold War, the Korean War, brief American supremacy, and Vietnam.
The world would have been a better place, had we finished the job in 1946.
Agreed generally, as people in Eastern Europe who were neither Communists nor fascists didn’t deserve 40 years of Communism.
It’s hard to believe that the American public would have supported any further eastward incursion into Europe. As far as the US military presence in Europe there were already plans in motion to shift our forces to the Pacific for the final battle against Japan.
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.
