NationStates Jolt Archive

Following on from Asbena and myself's debate on who would have won WW2...actually, I'm not sure in what conditions. If the US hadn't entered? If they had but had lost more? Which scenarios exactly?

Though I suspect the Axis might have won without the US. If that is the case, it would have been close.

Alright I'll go from that scenario of no US or Pearl Harbor push to enter USA into the war, alright?

Alright I'll go from that scenario of no US or Pearl Harbor push to enter USA into the war, alright?

Okay. Either no Pearl Harbour or a Lindbergh-style election victory. It's all the same really. Shoot.

I think without US help, Britain alone couldn't bomb the crap out of German factories, the German war machine would have more men and resources to pour into the Eastern front. Also the Japanese might have advanced on resource-rich Siberia and the Russians would be pressed on two fronts. If that happened, I think an axis victory would be guaranteed.

Without the US, the USSR would have defeated the Nazis and in doing so conquered mainland Europe, bringing the war to an end in mid-1946. The Japanese army in Manchuria would have then lasted a few months rather than two weeks. Its navy, undefeated in the absence of US involvement, would have been relegated to maintaining Japanese influence over former European SE Asian colonies such as Singapore.

Balance of power would then be US vs USSR Cold War, Europe being a very large and impoverished Warsaw Pact forced to wait 20-30 years for reconstruction, and Japan in a cold, possibly later hot war with the US over influence in the Pacific.

Soviet Union from Atlantic to Pacific, and eventually the whole world

this is a little overdone, no?

I think without US help, Britain alone couldn't bomb the crap out of German factories, the German war machine would have more men and resources to pour into the Eastern front. Also the Japanese might have advanced on resource-rich Siberia and the Russians would be pressed on two fronts. If that happened, I think an axis victory would be guaranteed.

Perhaps, although I do think the Russians might have eventually fended off the Germans- perhaps a few years later. They would have eventually stopped the Germans further east. The Wehrmacht might have taken Moscow, but I doubt that would have mattered - it didn't in 1812.

Without the US, the USSR would have defeated the Nazis and in doing so conquered mainland Europe, bringing the war to an end in mid-1946. The Japanese army in Manchuria would have then lasted a few months rather than two weeks. Its navy, undefeated in the absence of US involvement, would have been relegated to maintaining Japanese influence over former European SE Asian colonies such as Singapore.

Balance of power would then be US vs USSR Cold War, Europe being a very large and impoverished Warsaw Pact forced to wait 20-30 years for reconstruction, and Japan in a cold, possibly later hot war with the US over influence in the Pacific.

Y'see, thats basically what I think would have happened. With the Soviets getting all of the Nazi technology, such as V-weapons and the A-Bomb project, earlier than they did.

Alright first things first I'd like to say that America would still be doing its usual sell arms to both sides and that at some point these ships would be attacked and sunk, thereby cutting Germany and Europe from American arms, provided America remained deadset on a non-war situation.

Such things would have made the already straining allies situation worse when in 1941 when Germany would have been able to avoid attacking USSR (they were the aggressor and were low on materials and needed to push into Russia for oil)

This means that Germany would have continued attacking Britain until the eventual collaspe....

One sec :O Dinner XD

Alright first things first I'd like to say that America would still be doing its usual sell arms to both sides and that at some point these ships would be attacked and sunk, thereby cutting Germany and Europe from American arms, provided America remained deadset on a non-war situation.

Such things would have made the already straining allies situation worse when in 1941 when Germany would have been able to avoid attacking USSR (they were the aggressor and were low on materials and needed to push into Russia for oil)

This means that Germany would have continued attacking Britain until the eventual collaspe....

One sec :O Dinner XD

Wsit a moment, that is wrong on at least one level. There is little doubt that Hitler wanted to destroy the USSR; Mein Kampf states it quite clearly. The US not entering the war would not have changed that one iota - it might even have sped things up. Hitler wanted to attack before Stalin did, in what was likely to be mid-1942 at the earliest.

EDIT: That also assumes Roosevelt wouldn't have pushed Lend-Lease into another stage, which considering his reationship with Churchill is quite unlikely.

Since America began the push in Africa I'll assume no American push means NO FALL OF ITALY. This means no weakening and no D-Day. Britian falls around late 1942, Russia is now going to enter war against two POWERFUL allies that are holding Europe down. Alrighties?

Britain is not overrun, but has to remain defending itself whil the USSR begins pushing the Nazis back. Hitler is soon defeated and the USSR controls all of Europe and most of Africa. Stalin then declares war on Japan and a huge battle ensues...that lasts for decades. The US sits on the sidelines reading a newspaper.

Since America began the push in Africa I'll assume no American push means NO FALL OF ITALY. This means no weakening and no D-Day. Britian falls around late 1942, Russia is now going to enter war against two POWERFUL allies that are holding Europe down. Alrighties?

I'm sorry, this is rather flawed. Please explain why Hitler wouldn't have launched Barbarossa a the same historical time he did, if not earlier, and why Britain would have fallen in 1942. Thirdly, Italy was by no means a powerful ally - their armed forces were rather apathetic at many times, not believing in what they were fighting for except for the Blackshirts and Belsaglieri.

Wsit a moment, that is wrong on at least one level. There is little doubt that Hitler wanted to destroy the USSR; Mein Kampf states it quite clearly. The US not entering the war would not have changed that one iota - it might even have sped things up. Hitler wanted to attack before Stalin did, in what was likely to be mid-1942 at the earliest.

EDIT: That also assumes Roosevelt wouldn't have pushed Lend-Lease into another stage, which considering his reationship with Churchill is quite unlikely.


True, though 1942 is enough for it, I am thinking late 1942 after Britain falls. Hitler did not anticipate the strength of Britain and would naturally not want to fight a war on two or even three fronts. A difference of two months....but enough for Hitler to prepare after the fall of Russia.

Mein Kampf needs to be looked at in the best since issue, since Britian was not supposed to put up such a valient struggle. :)

Incidentally, final score was 600 German divisions destroyed in the East, 200 German divisions destroyed in all other theatres. The USSR inflicted the vast majority of the damage, and while the Western Allies were establishing a foothold in Normandy, the Germans lost 200,000 men in the space of two weeks in the Belorussian Offensive.

The Ardennes Offensive was the only battle the Western Allies fought, which was on the scale of the battles on the Eastern Front. The combatants over there were maneuvering Army Groups rather than Armies.

I'm sorry, this is rather flawed. Please explain why Hitler wouldn't have launched Barbarossa a the same historical time he did, if not earlier, and why Britain would have fallen in 1942. Thirdly, Italy was by no means a powerful ally - their armed forces were rather apathetic at many times, not believing in what they were fighting for except for the Blackshirts and Belsaglieri.

Britain was recieving aid from America (as with many allies), but I am assuming Hitler would push his luck anyways and use the U-boats to stop American imports, and if no war from America, Roosevelt would give up and break relations as the situation was dangerous, a pacifistic move would mean the lack of supplies in Britain and eventually forced surrender.

Hitler underestimated America and its economic power and ability, without that grave mistake Britain would have fallen if America cut supplies and it would have been disasterous.

Well, here's what would have happened.
We should have gone on to the end, we should have fought in France, we should have fight on the seas and oceans, we should have fought with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we should have defended our Island, whatever the cost might have been, we should have fought on the beaches, we should have fought on the landing grounds, we should have fought in the fields and in the streets, we should have fought in the hills; we should have never surrendered, and even if, which Churchill did not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would have carried on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, would have got bored of the hypothetical situation and stepped in.

I'm sorry, this is rather flawed. Please explain why Hitler wouldn't have launched Barbarossa a the same historical time he did, if not earlier, and why Britain would have fallen in 1942. Thirdly, Italy was by no means a powerful ally - their armed forces were rather apathetic at many times, not believing in what they were fighting for except for the Blackshirts and Belsaglieri.

And it's their 9the Italians') fault for the delay of Barbarossa in the first place. If the Italians had been able to handle themselves against Greece, B.. would have been started at least three months earlier. That would have give Germany a greater chance of taking Moscow before the winter hit even w/ the division of the German forces.

Taking even one division from Scandinavia and adding it to the DAK would most likely have allowed Germany to defeat the British forces in Africa allowing for a push against the Middle East and the oil fields. This would have hurt the UK supplies as well as forcing the USSR to divide its forces to protect its southern oil fields.

True, though 1942 is enough for it, I am thinking late 1942 after Britain falls. Hitler did not anticipate the strength of Britain and would naturally not want to fight a war on two or even three fronts. A difference of two months....but enough for Hitler to prepare after the fall of Russia.

Mein Kampf needs to be looked at in the best since issue, since Britian was not supposed to put up such a valient struggle. :)

What? No, thats absurd. The US not entering the war doesn't occur until late 1941; until then, nothing would have changed. Thus, no fall of Britain and an invasion of Russia via Barbarossa as per the historical dates.

Germany would have taken over England, and then devoted all pressures on Russia. While on that, Japan would also have attacked Russsia, though all the Japanese would freeze to death on Siberia, therefore Russia would have had to relocate all of the troops in the Eastern Campaign to the Western, and by the time they got there Germany would have already taken over Russia and all of the Russians would wage a guerilla campiagn, but eventually would all be killed. After that, US would probably join up with Germany to kick Japan butt.

Britain was recieving aid from America (as with many allies), but I am assuming Hitler would push his luck anyways and use the U-boats to stop American imports, and if no war from America, Roosevelt would give up and break relations as the situation was dangerous, a pacifistic move would mean the lack of supplies in Britain and eventually forced surrender.

Hitler underestimated America and its economic power and ability, without that grave mistake Britain would have fallen if America cut supplies and it would have been disasterous.

Thats rubbish. If Hitler had 'Pushed his luck' and sunk US ships, Roosevelt would have declared war; he hardly needed an excuse anyway. Pearl Harbour was a nice way to get involved.

I'm pretty sure all of the Britons would have relocated north of Hadrian's wall and have held up within the highlands ambushing German troops in full Scottish regalia, kilt, bagpipe, ginger hair, the lot.

Russia would have pulled off the same **** they did when Napoleon was invading. Pull back and burn stuff.

Germany would have taken over England, and then devoted all pressures on Russia. While on that, Japan would also have attacked Russsia, though all the Japanese would freeze to death on Siberia, therefore Russia would have had to relocate all of the troops in the Eastern Campaign to the Western, and by the time they got there Germany would have already taken over Russia and all of the Russians would wage a guerilla campiagn, but eventually would all be killed. After that, US would probably join up with Germany to kick Japan butt.

Again, thats rubbish. Until 1941, when we assume the US doesn't get inolved and our theory moves away from history, Britain would have held and Barbarossa continued as per usual. Britain would not have fallen. Also, why would Japan attack Russia? They didn't historically, they were too busy in the Pacific and China still. Thirdly, why would the US join forces with Nazi Germany without a massive change in power?

I'm pretty sure all of the Britons would have relocated north of Hadrian's wall and have held up within the highlands ambushing German troops in full Scottish regalia, kilt, bagpipe, ginger hair, the lot.

Heh. The Caledonian Offensive.

Incidentally, final score was 600 German divisions destroyed in the East, 200 German divisions destroyed in all other theatres. The USSR inflicted the vast majority of the damage, and while the Western Allies were establishing a foothold in Normandy, the Germans lost 200,000 men in the space of two weeks in the Belorussian Offensive.

The Ardennes Offensive was the only battle the Western Allies fought, which was on the scale of the battles on the Eastern Front. The combatants over there were maneuvering Army Groups rather than Armies.

So true, though the weather got many of them and then poor suppling and lack of preparedness for another, it ruined them, but the Russians took massive losses to.

It would be interesting to see what would have been the case if Hitler had waited out the weather instead or actually pushed to Moscow instead. If Hitler did not go all the way to Stalingrad for oil I believe the situation would have ended differently for Russia also. (Though that is another scenario...)

Thirdly, why would the US join forces with Nazi Germany without a massive change in power?
Because the US government is and always has been a great big of bunch of two-faced morons without any morals.

So true, though the weather got many of them and then poor suppling and lack of preparedness for another, it ruined them, but the Russians took massive losses to.

It would be interesting to see what would have been the case if Hitler had waited out the weather instead or actually pushed to Moscow instead. If Hitler did not go all the way to Stalingrad for oil I believe the situation would have ended differently for Russia also. (Though that is another scenario...)

I doubt the scenario would have changed much. The Red Army would have merely retreated to the Urals and staged their counter-offensive there. Moscow was an important symbol, but not vital; it certainly wasn't in 1812.

Again, thats rubbish. Until 1941, when we assume the US doesn't get inolved and our theory moves away from history, Britain would have held and Barbarossa continued as per usual. Britain would not have fallen. Also, why would Japan attack Russia? They didn't historically, they were too busy in the Pacific and China still. Thirdly, why would the US join forces with Nazi Germany without a massive change in power?

I agree with you on this completely...except Britain falling in the end.

I agree with you on this completely...except Britain falling in the end.

No, why would Britain have fallen? It didn't historically, and since our theory doesn't diverge until December 1941, months after Barbarossa and the end of the Battle of Britain, Britain would not have fallen. Hitler had bigger fish to fry.

I doubt the scenario would have changed much. The Red Army would have merely retreated to the Urals and staged their counter-offensive there. Moscow was an important symbol, but not vital; it certainly wasn't in 1812.

However the fall of Moscow would demoralize the army and also provide the army a plenty of space to set up defenses and logistics for the rest of the harsh winter. I think that is what Hitler wanted, unless he could capture Stalin in Moscow. (which no leader would when you have an ARMY on the way to your home)

Its not vital, but is important to hold a major city of such importance.

I doubt the scenario would have changed much. The Red Army would have merely retreated to the Urals and staged their counter-offensive there. Moscow was an important symbol, but not vital; it certainly wasn't in 1812.

I disagree. By 1940, Moscow had become the central transportation hub for the entire Soviet Union. Effectively, everything had to go through there.

It was also the primary political hub. Had it fallen, it could be argued that the leadership to organize a counter offensive wouldn't be there, as it took quite a while for them to rebuild an effecive officer corps even after the stalling of the German offensive.

The Germans made the mistake of not developing long range bombers. This would have allowed them to hit the Ural buildups and the entire UK

Because the US government is and always has been a great big of bunch of two-faced morons without any morals.

*cough* without us you would've lost the war you tea sipping, crumpet stuffing morons. *cough*

*cough* without us you would've lost the war you tea sipping, crumpet stuffing morons. *cough*
We are going on the basis the USA never entered the war. :P

I agree with Tactical Grace. The Soviets would have smashed the Germans and instead of a western liberation, they would have conquered Europe. Britain would be alot worse off, but still sovereign - there's simply no way the Soviets could cross the channel.

Britain would never have fallen, even without America's help. We fought the Battle of Britain pretty much on our own, it was 1941-1943 that the US actually helped us.

I disagree. By 1940, Moscow had become the central transportation hub for the entire Soviet Union. Effectively, everything had to go through there.

It was also the primary political hub. Had it fallen, it could be argued that the leadership to organize a counter offensive wouldn't be there, as it took quite a while for them to rebuild an effecive officer corps even after the stalling of the German offensive.

The Germans made the mistake of not developing long range bombers. This would have allowed them to hit the Ural buildups and the entire UK

Whilst I think Moscow was an important symbol, and indeed political and transportation hub, I don't think it would have been fatal. I think Stalin would have had enough power and personality to stay on, and a counteroffensive would eventually have succeeded. It would have taken longer, but it would have worked eventually.

Without the US, the USSR would have defeated the Nazis and in doing so conquered mainland Europe, bringing the war to an end in mid-1946. The Japanese army in Manchuria would have then lasted a few months rather than two weeks. Its navy, undefeated in the absence of US involvement, would have been relegated to maintaining Japanese influence over former European SE Asian colonies such as Singapore.

Balance of power would then be US vs USSR Cold War, Europe being a very large and impoverished Warsaw Pact forced to wait 20-30 years for reconstruction, and Japan in a cold, possibly later hot war with the US over influence in the Pacific.

Probably later then 46. Don't forget there wouldn't have been the early support. No trucks.....

*cough* without us you would've lost the war you tea sipping, crumpet stuffing morons. *cough*

*Cough* The US's role in WW2 is often inflated. It was important, but not the end all and be all *Cough*

I agree with Tactical Grace. The Soviets would have smashed the Germans and instead of a western liberation, they would have conquered Europe. Britain would be alot worse off, but still sovereign - there's simply no way the Soviets could cross the channel.

Britain would never have fallen, even without America's help. We fought the Battle of Britain pretty much on our own, it was 1941-1943 that the US actually helped us.

I dunno Hoggy. Even with the Royal Navy at its prime, the Soviet's , alongside puppet government militaries, might have used sheer numbers of ships and airpower to take the Isles.

No, why would Britain have fallen? It didn't historically, and since our theory doesn't diverge until December 1941, months after Barbarossa and the end of the Battle of Britain, Britain would not have fallen. Hitler had bigger fish to fry.

Counterfactuals are by their very nature speculative, but I think we need to better define the differences... the US was already quite involved in the war in 1941 with lend-lease aid, which began far before Pearl Harbor. I would say that a true counterfactual would have been if the 1940 election had been a referendum on isolationism and FDR lost to a very conservative, isolationist candidate. Then you can go with the theories, I think... figure out what the US wouldn't have done (embargoed oil to Japan, assisted Britain with supplies and shipping in Atlantic) and work from there.

I disagree. By 1940, Moscow had become the central transportation hub for the entire Soviet Union. Effectively, everything had to go through there.

It was also the primary political hub. Had it fallen, it could be argued that the leadership to organize a counter offensive wouldn't be there, as it took quite a while for them to rebuild an effecive officer corps even after the stalling of the German offensive.

The Germans made the mistake of not developing long range bombers. This would have allowed them to hit the Ural buildups and the entire UK

True, though its ability to still resist is a good sign.
Though I would like to add its logistic advantages and ability to strike many other parts of Russia would be key (although some brave attempts might be made to destroy the routes to stop the movement or at least ambush them in transit), but they were less likely when the Russians began to be desperate and regroup.

I dunno Hoggy. Even with the Royal Navy at its prime, the Soviet's , alongside puppet government militaries, might have used sheer numbers of ships and airpower to take the Isles.

What ships? And who would build them? The soviets didn't know a damn about shipbuilding, they got all their stuff from us or the Americans (The battleship Royal Sovereign was transffered to the USSR mid war) They'd attack on barges, we'd blow them up on the channel, and the Red Airforce would die to the RAF because we had RADAR.

Counterfactuals are by their very nature speculative, but I think we need to better define the differences... the US was already quite involved in the war in 1941 with lend-lease aid, which began far before Pearl Harbor. I would say that a true counterfactual would have been if the 1940 election had been a referendum on isolationism and FDR lost to a very conservative, isolationist candidate. Then you can go with the theories, I think... figure out what the US wouldn't have done (embargoed oil to Japan, assisted Britain with supplies and shipping in Atlantic) and work from there.

I did say such a thing, but said Hitler's U-boats would be sinking the ships and any supplies would be a total end and Britain would be cut off, forcing them into surrender.

Counterfactuals are by their very nature speculative, but I think we need to better define the differences... the US was already quite involved in the war in 1941 with lend-lease aid, which began far before Pearl Harbor. I would say that a true counterfactual would have been if the 1940 election had been a referendum on isolationism and FDR lost to a very conservative, isolationist candidate. Then you can go with the theories, I think... figure out what the US wouldn't have done (embargoed oil to Japan, assisted Britain with supplies and shipping in Atlantic) and work from there.

I don't think so. The two candidates in the '40 election, Roosevelt and Wilkins, were both vivdly pro-Lend-Lease and anti-Hitler. Either result would have been the same really. Even counter-factuals have to be based on the MPC (Minimum Possible Change) Theory.

I did say such a thing, but said Hitler's U-boats would be sinking the ships and any supplies would be a total end and Britain would be cut off, forcing them into surrender.

No, because then Roosevelt would have declared war; it would have been a cast-iron reason.

No, because then Roosevelt would have declared war; it would have been a cast-iron reason.

Ahh but the US is out. No supplies......

What ships? And who would build them? The soviets didn't know a damn about shipbuilding, they got all their stuff from us or the Americans (The battleship Royal Sovereign was transffered to the USSR mid war) They'd attack on barges, we'd blow them up on the channel, and the Red Airforce would die to the RAF because we had RADAR.

Hmmm. Well, you're the naval expert here, so I bow to your knowledge.

I don't think so. The two candidates in the '40 election, Roosevelt and Wilkins, were both vivdly pro-Lend-Lease and anti-Hitler. Either result would have been the same really. Even counter-factuals have to be based on the MPC (Minimum Possible Change) Theory.

Yeah, FDR and Wilkie weren't all that different... but I'm sort of thinking that either way, the US was inevitably going to be drawn into the war without some sort of major change in the country's politics/leadership. So I'm not sure, really.

if Britian had been invaded it would need more then the force that they allocated it , what Hitler and the High Command didnt know was that facing them across was one of most highly trained guerrilla forces around at the time in the Auxillary Units of the home guard. they would of made the countryside one blood bath for The occupying forces, you would have palces like the fens and broads an almost no go zones for the germans

Ahh but the US is out. No supplies......

Not according to Asbena's theory - he said the US would still be trading.

Whilst I think Moscow was an important symbol, and indeed political and transportation hub, I don't think it would have been fatal. I think Stalin would have had enough power and personality to stay on, and a counteroffensive would eventually have succeeded. It would have taken longer, but it would have worked eventually.

Possibly, but there's also the aspect of the entire Soviet machine fracturing at that point. Stalin wasn't universally loved and a loss of that magnitude could very well have turned the people against him. Up until the treatment of Soviet prisoners became known, there were quite a few Soviet units that supported the Germans against their former masters.

W/o the US involvement, more German troops/materiels would have been available for the Eastern front.

Another mistake by the Germans. Had they treated the Soviets w/ even a modicrum of respect, they would have had millions of additional soldiers.

Yeah, FDR and Wilkie weren't all that different... but I'm sort of thinking that either way, the US was inevitably going to be drawn into the war without some sort of major change in the country's politics/leadership. So I'm not sure, really.

Yeah, they would have been , one way or another.

Possibly, but there's also the aspect of the entire Soviet machine fracturing at that point. Stalin wasn't universally loved and a loss of that magnitude could very well have turned the people against him. Up until the treatment of Soviet prisoners became known, there were quite a few Soviet units that supported the Germans against their former masters.

W/o the US involvement, more German troops/materiels would have been available for the Eastern front.

Another mistake by the Germans. Had they treated the Soviets w/ even a modicrum of respect, they would have had millions of additional soldiers.

Indeed. Hitler made an idiotic calculatin with ms-treating the Cossacks...

It's quite simple, a British battleship and a few cruisers on the English channel, covered by the RAF and RADAR - the Russkis would have no way of sinking it.

if Britian had been invaded it would need more then the force that they allocated it , what Hitler and the High Command didnt know was that facing them across was one of most highly trained guerrilla forces around at the time in the Auxillary Units of the home guard. they would of made the countryside one blood bath for The occupying forces, you would have palces like the fens and broads an almost no go zones for the germans

Yep. Niall Ferguson's book Virtual History has a good essay on that - it woud have taken hundreds of thousands of troops to secrue Britain.

Not according to Asbena's theory - he said the US would still be trading.

Well if you going to weigh the affect of the US then you have to have it out.

Which means no supplies or profiting by supplying both sides. ;)

It's quite simple, a British battleship and a few cruisers on the English channel, covered by the RAF and RADAR - the Russkis would have no way of sinking it.

Ah, but after capturing Nazi technology, the Soviets would have had RADAR. Not in a brilliant state, but based in French bases and such...that would have made a difference.

Not according to Asbena's theory - he said the US would still be trading.

Well according to mine no US in the war, I think trading would have stopped after Hitler attacked them and it chose not to go to war or decided to abandon Europe as a lost cause. If the USA didn't enter or even if it DID by late 1941 the situation was bleak for Britain and it would have starved into submission under the constant attacks.

Without the US, the USSR would have defeated the Nazis and in doing so conquered mainland Europe, bringing the war to an end in mid-1946. The Japanese army in Manchuria would have then lasted a few months rather than two weeks. Its navy, undefeated in the absence of US involvement, would have been relegated to maintaining Japanese influence over former European SE Asian colonies such as Singapore.

Balance of power would then be US vs USSR Cold War, Europe being a very large and impoverished Warsaw Pact forced to wait 20-30 years for reconstruction, and Japan in a cold, possibly later hot war with the US over influence in the Pacific.
Pretty much exactly my opinion.

The only way the Nazis could have defeated the Soviets would have been if they had won the Battle for Moscow in 1941/42. And for that to happen a few other things would have had to be done differently (ie invade a few weeks earlier, concentrate on Moscow more, and don't get as hung up attacking Kiev and Leningrad as well).
A proper operation against the Murmansk sea ports would have been useful as well, because that would have cut off a lot of Allied supplies to the USSR.

Well if you going to weigh the affect of the US then you have to have it out.

Which means no supplies or profiting by supplying both sides. ;)

Hmmm, well, indeed then. I still think the USSR would have won - I mean, even if Britain had fallen, something I on't think would have happened, the Commonwealth would have fought on. Fractured a bit by political backstabbing perhaps, but still an effective fighting unit with hundreds of thousands of troops.

True, though 1942 is enough for it, I am thinking late 1942 after Britain falls. Hitler did not anticipate the strength of Britain and would naturally not want to fight a war on two or even three fronts. A difference of two months....but enough for Hitler to prepare after the fall of Russia.

Mein Kampf needs to be looked at in the best since issue, since Britian was not supposed to put up such a valient struggle. :)Uh... sorry... you're still not answering the question about Barbarossa. Why would Hitler choose not to fight on two fronts in a scenario where the USA didn't join on the side of the UK, as opposed to what actually happened - fighting on two fronts despite the USA joining on the side of the UK? If Hitler hadn't attacked Stalin, then Stalin would have attacked Hitler. Neither of them seriously expected the non-agression pact to kept. The pact didn't even truely last a whole year, both Stalin and Hitler had invaded places where they had agreed not to by the spring of 1940.

However, both parties kept peaceful relations for another year, before Hitler launched operation Barbarossa. The invasion was a success and annexed the vast majority of land that the USSR had gained under the non-agression pact. But the German army failed to take Moscow before the Russian winter set in, and with only summer clothing the forces were weakened significantly. Hitler then turned his attention to Caucuses in an attempt to gain control of the oil in the region. Ultimately the attack failed with the obliteration of a significant chunk of the Nazi forces at Stalingrad. That is what I believe lost the war for the Hitler. Nothing man made, but a underestimation of just how damn cold it gets in Russia in the winter.

My last point. If the USA hadn't have joined the war, would it have still supplied the Allies and the USSR with weapons? If they hadn't then perhaps the Nazis might have taken Moscow.

Well according to mine no US in the war, I think trading would have stopped after Hitler attacked them and it chose not to go to war or decided to abandon Europe as a lost cause. If the USA didn't enter or even if it DID by late 1941 the situation was bleak for Britain and it would have starved into submission under the constant attacks.

Again, constant attacks from wat? Even in this alternate timeline, the Wehrmacht is still in Russia, and Britain would have been an unwelcome and diverting theatre when all troops were needed in Russia.

It's quite simple, a British battleship and a few cruisers on the English channel, covered by the RAF and RADAR - the Russkis would have no way of sinking it.

This is not Russia vs Britain....we expect a breakdown of German relations with Russia in the first place anyways. Russia was infact suspecting it.

Uh... sorry... you're still not answering the question about Barbarossa. Why would Hitler choose not to fight on two fronts in a scenario where the USA didn't join on the side of the UK, as opposed to what actually happened - fighting on two fronts despite the USA joining on the side of the UK? If Hitler hadn't attacked Stalin, then Stalin would have attacked Hitler. Neither of them seriously expected the non-agression pact to kept. The pact didn't even truely last a whole year, both Stalin and Hitler had invaded places where they had agreed not to by the spring of 1940.

However, both parties kept peaceful relations for another year, before Hitler launched operation Barbarossa. The invasion was a success and annexed the vast majority of land that the USSR had gained under the non-agression pact. But the German army failed to take Moscow before the Russian winter set in, and with only summer clothing the forces were weakened significantly. Hitler then turned his attention to Caucuses in an attempt to gain control of the oil in the region. Ultimately the attack failed with the obliteration of a significant chunk of the Nazi forces at Stalingrad. That is what I believe lost the war for the Hitler. Nothing man made, but a underestimation of just how damn cold it gets in Russia in the winter.

My last point. If the USA hadn't have joined the war, would it have still supplied the Allies and the USSR with weapons? If they hadn't then perhaps the Nazis might have taken Moscow.

I am saying no supplies from America to Britain or USSR. :)

This is not Russia vs Britain....we expect a breakdown of German relations with Russia in the first place anyways. Russia was infact suspecting it.

I know. I was saying that is what would happen if the Soviets did conquer Europe.

Anyway, Russia is a wide country.. but its not as high as Britain. I live around the wolds, and they are packed with forests, lakes, and huge hills. Since Britain is a land of extremes (really cold in the winter and sometimes damn hot in the summer) and its pretty big for it size (if that makes sense) and combining the patriotism of the British people at that time, I say an occupation of Britain at the same time as the Eastern front would have easily failed.

I am saying no supplies from America to Britain or USSR. :)

Dude, that still doesn't answer the question about Barbarossa. Hitler would still have continued with it.

I know. I was saying that is what would happen if the Soviets did conquer Europe.

Anyway, Russia is a wide country.. but its not as high as Britain. I live around the wolds, and they are packed with forests, lakes, and huge hills. Since Britain is a land of extremes (really cold in the winter and sometimes damn hot in the summer) and its pretty big for it size (if that makes sense) and combining the patriotism of the British people at that time, I say an occupation of Britain at the same time as the Eastern front would have easily failed.

I don't think it would have been able to keep up with constant artillery strikes and air attacks and bombing of the cities and no American back up of any sort or supplies.

I don't think it would have been able to keep up with constant artillery strikes and air attacks and bombing of the cities and no American back up of any sort or supplies.

What airstrikes and artillery for gods sake? Artillery was out of range, and what airstrikes? The Battle of Britain had stopped most air fighting expect for night raids, and Hitler would still have done Barbarossa for crying out loud!

Dude, that still doesn't answer the question about Barbarossa. Hitler would still have continued with it.

Operation Barbarossa I said would be delayed until the fall of Britain ideally....or if not it would have progressed as scheduled.

Firstly, lets go on the pretense that America stays out of the war right. Lets begin by looking at Africa, Although the British and it's allies kept, the German Army in Check at the Battle of El Alaemin (Spell Check) they would not have been able to push the German forces of Rommel and other Commanders all the way to Libya, without American manpower and thus forcing the surrender of 250, 000 crack German Troops. These 250,000 crack troops would have captured Alexandria and Cairo. Then moving up the middle east through Iran (which Britain and USSR invaded to keep Germans gaining it) to the Causcan Oil fields of Russia. Russia only held out due to two things winter and foreign aid, but if America was uninvloved, British forces woudn't be reciving powerfull sherman tanks to fight in other theatres as well as russia not receiving powerfull anti-tank artillery. Thus Russia would have fallen, not by the capture of Moscow, which I agree was unimportant politically and strategically, but the Fall of Stalingrad, which would eventually have happened without the aid of American Weapons. Stalingrad being a major industiral area and bearing the name of the Soviet leader for his involvement in the Russian Civil War there. So capturing it would mean A) huge factories to build shit with as well as basically kicking in the door and the whole thing comes crashing down. And B) capturing the city of the Leaders name, thus Capturing Stalin (War is very psychological) Japan didn't invade Russia, and would never have, so rule that out, however without American forces perfomring a rear guard action in the Pacfic (which is what they did, till the defeat of hitler) Britain would have fallen in the east, As shown by the collapse of singapore, the Japenese would have, then been Able to take India, the Jewel of the British Empire and (dare i say it) would probably taken Australia and then New Zealand. thus no pacfic launching pad for a Counter Strike. With The Pacific all but conqured except for gurillea forces. Russia Fallen. German could then turn it's attention back to Britian and it would have fallen eventually. Thus Germany/Italy/Japan, would combined own most of SE Asia and Pacfic, North Africa, Europe and Parts of the Middle East. And i think with the defeat of Russia and Living space for his people, Hitler would have been satisifed, and the end of world war two.

But thats my view. LOL

Asbena, you can't bomb what you can't see. If they landed heavy armour (an impossibility, since Sealion was a crappy plan) they could certainly have annexed Britain, but it would be impossible to hold. The landscape is just perfect for partisan conditions.

Operation Barbarossa I said would be delayed until the fall of Britain ideally....or if not it would have progressed as scheduled.

Why would it have been delayed? What historical evidence do you have for this suggestion? All counterfactua is based on historical fact at least and then theorises - so why would it have been delayed? It wasn't historically; well, not for Britain, anyway.

Firstly, lets go on the pretense that America stays out of the war right. Lets begin by looking at Africa, Although the British and it's allies kept, the German Army in Check at the Battle of El Alaemin (Spell Check) they would not have been able to push the German forces of Rommel and other Commanders all the way to Libya, without American manpower and thus forcing the surrender of 250, 000 crack German Troops. These 250,000 crack troops would have captured Alexandria and Cairo. Then moving up the middle east through Iran (which Britain and USSR invaded to keep Germans gaining it) to the Causcan Oil fields of Russia. Russia only held out due to two things winter and foreign aid, but if America was uninvloved, British forces woudn't be reciving powerfull sherman tanks to fight in other theatres as well as russia not receiving powerfull anti-tank artillery. Thus Russia would have fallen, not by the capture of Moscow, which I agree was unimportant politically and strategically, but the Fall of Stalingrad, which would eventually have happened without the aid of American Weapons. Stalingrad being a major industiral area and bearing the name of the Soviet leader for his involvement in the Russian Civil War there. So capturing it would mean A) huge factories to build shit with as well as basically kicking in the door and the whole thing comes crashing down. And B) capturing the city of the Leaders name, thus Capturing Stalin (War is very psychological) Japan didn't invade Russia, and would never have, so rule that out, however without American forces perfomring a rear guard action in the Pacfic (which is what they did, till the defeat of hitler) Britain would have fallen in the east, As shown by the collapse of singapore, the Japenese would have, then been Able to take India, the Jewel of the British Empire and (dare i say it) would probably taken Australia and then New Zealand. thus no pacfic launching pad for a Counter Strike. With The Pacific all but conqured except for gurillea forces. Russia Fallen. German could then turn it's attention back to Britian and it would have fallen eventually. Thus Germany/Italy/Japan, would combined own most of SE Asia and Pacfic, North Africa, Europe and Parts of the Middle East. And i think with the defeat of Russia and Living space for his people, Hitler would have been satisifed, and the end of world war two.

But thats my view. LOL

Wait, what? foreign aid was only a helping hand in Russia's victory, if you've read ANY accounts of the war from both Russian and German sides you will see its the fact that the Russians just bled the Germans dry. The wehrmacht were fine soldiers, but they just couldn't resist an entire nation of people willing to do whatever it takes to destroy the enemy, alongside the accursed winter.

There is no reason Hitler shouldn't have won. Read 'How Hitler Could Have Won WW2' by Bevin Alexander for a great enlightenment of the whole debacle.

http://www.bevinalexander.com/books/hitler-world-war-ii.htm

Easy.

Japan stays out. The USSR is unable to recall its siberian divisions from the east to defend moscow. Spring 1942 moscow falls.

Soviet war industry is moved east by this time, and the germans are operating at the extreme edge of their communications. Soviet industry also suffers from the lack of horizontal integration with the allies that is would otherwise be able to achieve under lend-lease, and therefore is unable to produce the amount of war material that it actually did.

Similarly German war industry becomes similarly strained as it attempts to gain production parity with a far larger industrial base - even with the use of forced labour. Despite this, as it is not suffering the disruption to communications and manufacturing inflicted upon it by the 1943 allied bombing campaign, it is able to match the Soviets in war-fighting capacity on the front lines. Though it lacks the strength to mount further major offensives.

Both sides reach a bloody stalemate and batter each other to exhaustion over the next six or seven years. Both sides are unable to deliver a killing blow.

Further, because of the strain on the resources and capacities of both nations, neither are able to realistically implement/deploy any dramatically revolutionary new weapons. The pace of technological improvement for the arsenals of both sides crawls to a halt.

Meanwhile, the UK tube alloys group - in conjunction with the US, develop the first fissile bomb. As it is officially 'neutral' the US is unwilling/cannot deploy it: Foreseeing this possibility however, churchill orders that the program should be replicated in secret at the calder hall site in cumbria and, by 1946, the UK has managed to produce an unknown number of working models of these weapons clandestinely - codename "tango". Addtionally the UK, unable to maintain further intensive combat operations after the reconquest of north africa because of the logistical impossibility of invading mainland Europe, has been able to employ excess war time industrial capacity to develop and deploy a jet assisted long range strategic heavy bomber, slightly exceeding the perfomance of the convair b-36 bomber.

1 Jan. 1947. The RAF advanced weapons group drops tango on berlin. Exact casualty figures are unknown. Hitler believed killed in the Nuclear inferno dead.

2. Jan 1947. Germany seeks armistice with UK. UK responds by insisting upon a complete unconditional surrender.

4. Jan 1947. Hamburg destroyed. (Again. LOL).

5. Jan 1947. Germany surrenders to the UK. All combat operations on the Eastern front suspended.

The Map of Europe is now redrawn. A crippled and sick USSR is forced to accept a return to the Brest-Litov line. Churchill further insists upon independence for southern russia (the Ukraine). The polish government in exile returns to warsaw from London.

As a neutered USSR now poses no threat, germany is split up into several distinct zones, and de-industrialzed. Horror at hitler's successful implementation of the so-called "final soloution" is so great that anti-german feeling is whips into a frenzy in liberated france and the war weary UK. Many germans die in the subsequent famine as allies refuse to provide food aid to the shattered german economy. Printing or distribution of literature in german is made illegal in the occupied zones, and depending upon whether the respective zones fall under the administration of Candian, UK, AusNZ or Libre France, an official "french only" or "english only" language policy it put in place. The intention is the complete destruction of german culture.

Labour is returned to office in the UK in the general election imeadiately follwing the War and the UK repudiates its war debts, telling the US "Molon Labe". Both nations have stockpiles of unknown size of strategic nuclear arms - and the ability to deploy them with intercontinental bombers. The US is therefore forced to accept this, causing chaos in financial markets and pushing the US back into the great depression.

Unecumbered by war debts the UK is able to strengthen its ties with the rest of the commonwealth, and correct many past injustices with its colonies. The UK and its commonwealth go on to become the worlds sole superpower. The US, and the USSR, weaker than they would have otherwise been, are unable to loot the post war world, and both wither on the vine, becoming middle ranked powers.

The french continue to enjoy a high standard of living, and the world's shortest work week.

As usual. Italy is forgiven.

The end.

Why would it have been delayed? What historical evidence do you have for this suggestion? All counterfactua is based on historical fact at least and then theorises - so why would it have been delayed? It wasn't historically; well, not for Britain, anyway.

I believe in Mein Kampf that Hitler overestimated Britain and its ability to hold out, he wanted Britain to fall quickly (much like France did) and then he could focus on the Soviet Union. Britain had mastery of the sea and it was dangerous, he NEEDED Britain to be forced out of the war, and he was doing everything he could to stop Britains war-machine in its tracks. An invasion of Britain was too dangerous with heavy armor and would have ended disasterously until Britain was on the brink of starvation and surrender.

Easy.

Japan stays out. The USSR is unable to recall its siberian divisions from the east to defend moscow. Spring 1942 moscow falls.

Soviet war industry is moved east by this time, and the germans are operating at the extreme edge of their communications. Soviet industry also suffers from the lack of horizontal integration with the allies that is would otherwise be able to achieve under lend-lease, and therefore is unable to produce the amount of war material that it actually did.

Similarly German war industry becomes similarly strained as it attempts to gain production parity with a far larger industrial base - even with the use of forced labour. Despite this, as it is not suffering the disruption to communications and manufacturing inflicted upon it by the 1943 allied bombing campaign, it is able to match the Soviets in war-fighting capacity on the front lines. Though it lacks the strength to mount further major offensives.

Both sides reach a bloody stalemate and batter each other to exhaustion over the next six or seven years. Both sides are unable to deliver a killing blow.

Further, because of the strain on the resources and capacities of both nations, neither are able to realistically implement/deploy any dramatically revolutionary new weapons. The pace of technological improvement for the arsenals of both sides crawls to a halt.

Meanwhile, the UK tube alloys group - in conjunction with the US, develop the first fissile bomb. As it is officially 'neutral' the US is unwilling/cannot deploy it: Foreseeing this possibility however, churchill orders that the program should be replicated in secret at the calder hall site in cumbria and, by 1946, the UK has managed to produce an unknown number of working models of these weapons clandestinely - codename "tango". Addtionally the UK, unable to maintain further intensive combat operations after the reconquest of north africa because of the logistical impossibility of invading mainland Europe, has been able to employ excess war time industrial capacity to develop and deploy a jet assisted long range strategic heavy bomber, slightly exceeding the perfomance of the convair b-36 bomber.

1 Jan. 1947. The RAF advanced weapons group drops tango on berlin. Exact casualty figures are unknown. Hitler believed killed in the Nuclear inferno dead.

2. Jan 1947. Germany seeks armistice with UK. UK responds by insisting upon a complete unconditional surrender.

4. Jan 1947. Hamburg destroyed. (Again. LOL).

5. Jan 1947. Germany surrenders to the UK. All combat operations on the Eastern front suspended.

The Map of Europe is now redrawn. A crippled and sick USSR is forced to accept a return to the Brest-Litov line. Churchill further insists upon independence for southern russia (the Ukraine). The polish government in exile returns to warsaw from London.

As a neutered USSR now poses no threat, germany is split up into several distinct zones, and de-industrialzed. Horror at hitler's successful implementation of the so-called "final soloution" is so great that anti-german feeling is whips into a frenzy in liberated france and the war weary UK. Many germans die in the subsequent famine as allies refuse to provide food aid to the shattered german economy. Printing or distribution of literature in german is made illegal in the occupied zones, and depending upon whether the respective zones fall under the administration of Candian, UK, AusNZ or Libre France, an official "french only" or "english only" language policy it put in place. The intention is the complete destruction of german culture.

Labour is returned to office in the UK in the general election imeadiately follwing the War and the UK repudiates its war debts, telling the US "Molon Labe". Both nations have stockpiles of unknown size of strategic nuclear arms - and the ability to deploy them with intercontinental bombers. The US is therefore forced to accept this, causing chaos in financial markets and pushing the US back into the great depression.

Unecumbered by war debts the UK is able to strengthen its ties with the rest of the commonwealth, and correct many past injustices with its colonies. The UK and its commonwealth go on to become the worlds sole superpower. The US, and the USSR, weaker than they would have otherwise been, are unable to loot the post war world, and both wither on the vine, becoming middle ranked powers.

The french continue to enjoy a high standard of living, and the world's shortest work week.

As usual. Italy is forgiven.

The end.

I say, thats rather good. Did you come up with that on your own, or with books? It's rather concise, except one thing. Whats to stop Japan invading Southern Russia once it and Germany have butted heads and bled each other dry?

Wait, what? foreign aid was only a helping hand in Russia's victory, if you've read ANY accounts of the war from both Russian and German sides you will see its the fact that the Russians just bled the Germans dry. The wehrmacht were fine soldiers, but they just couldn't resist an entire nation of people willing to do whatever it takes to destroy the enemy, alongside the accursed winter.

You might also notice the "entire nation" only were willing to oppose the Germans AFTER the treatment of prisoners came to light. Had that little fact been changed.....

1941 - under pressure from an threatened economic embargo Japan stops its Imperialist expansion not a shot is fired in the pacific for the duration of the war

Late 1946/Early 1947 -WWII (as we know it) ends with the Victors being Britain and the U.S.S.R though there is a small British foothold in Northern France Europe up to central Spain is under soviet control with brutal fighting still going on in Spain between the U.S.S.R and Spain.

1948 - the last fortress of a non-soviet Spain falls now begins the brutal occupation of Europe and most of the former colonies of mainland Europe resistance is fierce particularly in former French colonies and what’s left of Spain with Britain providing vast aid

1951 - China and the Soviet Union smash through Japanese far east and onto Japan the following struggle for the Japanese home islands proves disastrous with enormous casualties causing the Soviets to use newly made atomic weapons to little effect. America comes under fire from the Soviet union for supplying arms to rebels fortunately the Soviets are in no position to fight another war (a joint Anglo-U.S project finishes work on the A-Bomb it is kept a secret until the Soviets unleash there own version at which time the allies announce there weapon)

Late 1950’s/early 1960‘s - most of Eurasia and the far east lie in rubble the war against Japan is finally over with most of the Japanese population dead the now exhausted Soviet army finally rests though the death of Stalin causes friction with China and eventually a split

Late 60’s - The British Empire had managed to stick together under fear of the soviets but by now Britain was prepared to let go of the now costly colonies unfortunately this process was almost overnight causing massive problems across the globe

1970’s onwards - ?

Without the US, the USSR would have defeated the Nazis and in doing so conquered mainland Europe, bringing the war to an end in mid-1946. The Japanese army in Manchuria would have then lasted a few months rather than two weeks. Its navy, undefeated in the absence of US involvement, would have been relegated to maintaining Japanese influence over former European SE Asian colonies such as Singapore.

Balance of power would then be US vs USSR Cold War, Europe being a very large and impoverished Warsaw Pact forced to wait 20-30 years for reconstruction, and Japan in a cold, possibly later hot war with the US over influence in the Pacific.


Bullshit. The USSR depended on the US for supplies, and us crippling German industry. Especially in a two-front war and without Hitler's idiotic interference, the USSR would be beaten. Then Britain is doomed.

I really can't see a long-term alliance between Germany and Japan. Thus I see three competing powers: Nazi Germany and its European allies (Italy, Hungary, Finland, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Romania), Japan and its empire, and the U.S. and the remnants of the British empire (Canada, Australia, South Africa, India, etc.) along with maybe a few Latin American nations.

Easy.

Japan stays out. The USSR is unable to recall its siberian divisions from the east to defend moscow. Spring 1942 moscow falls.

Soviet war industry is moved east by this time, and the germans are operating at the extreme edge of their communications. Soviet industry also suffers from the lack of horizontal integration with the allies that is would otherwise be able to achieve under lend-lease, and therefore is unable to produce the amount of war material that it actually did.

Similarly German war industry becomes similarly strained as it attempts to gain production parity with a far larger industrial base - even with the use of forced labour. Despite this, as it is not suffering the disruption to communications and manufacturing inflicted upon it by the 1943 allied bombing campaign, it is able to match the Soviets in war-fighting capacity on the front lines. Though it lacks the strength to mount further major offensives.

Both sides reach a bloody stalemate and batter each other to exhaustion over the next six or seven years. Both sides are unable to deliver a killing blow.

Further, because of the strain on the resources and capacities of both nations, neither are able to realistically implement/deploy any dramatically revolutionary new weapons. The pace of technological improvement for the arsenals of both sides crawls to a halt.

Meanwhile, the UK tube alloys group - in conjunction with the US, develop the first fissile bomb. As it is officially 'neutral' the US is unwilling/cannot deploy it: Foreseeing this possibility however, churchill orders that the program should be replicated in secret at the calder hall site in cumbria and, by 1946, the UK has managed to produce an unknown number of working models of these weapons clandestinely - codename "tango". Addtionally the UK, unable to maintain further intensive combat operations after the reconquest of north africa because of the logistical impossibility of invading mainland Europe, has been able to employ excess war time industrial capacity to develop and deploy a jet assisted long range strategic heavy bomber, slightly exceeding the perfomance of the convair b-36 bomber.

1 Jan. 1947. The RAF advanced weapons group drops tango on berlin. Exact casualty figures are unknown. Hitler believed killed in the Nuclear inferno dead.

2. Jan 1947. Germany seeks armistice with UK. UK responds by insisting upon a complete unconditional surrender.

4. Jan 1947. Hamburg destroyed. (Again. LOL).

5. Jan 1947. Germany surrenders to the UK. All combat operations on the Eastern front suspended.

The Map of Europe is now redrawn. A crippled and sick USSR is forced to accept a return to the Brest-Litov line. Churchill further insists upon independence for southern russia (the Ukraine). The polish government in exile returns to warsaw from London.

As a neutered USSR now poses no threat, germany is split up into several distinct zones, and de-industrialzed. Horror at hitler's successful implementation of the so-called "final soloution" is so great that anti-german feeling is whips into a frenzy in liberated france and the war weary UK. Many germans die in the subsequent famine as allies refuse to provide food aid to the shattered german economy. Printing or distribution of literature in german is made illegal in the occupied zones, and depending upon whether the respective zones fall under the administration of Candian, UK, AusNZ or Libre France, an official "french only" or "english only" language policy it put in place. The intention is the complete destruction of german culture.

Labour is returned to office in the UK in the general election imeadiately follwing the War and the UK repudiates its war debts, telling the US "Molon Labe". Both nations have stockpiles of unknown size of strategic nuclear arms - and the ability to deploy them with intercontinental bombers. The US is therefore forced to accept this, causing chaos in financial markets and pushing the US back into the great depression.

Unecumbered by war debts the UK is able to strengthen its ties with the rest of the commonwealth, and correct many past injustices with its colonies. The UK and its commonwealth go on to become the worlds sole superpower. The US, and the USSR, weaker than they would have otherwise been, are unable to loot the post war world, and both wither on the vine, becoming middle ranked powers.

The french continue to enjoy a high standard of living, and the world's shortest work week.

As usual. Italy is forgiven.

The end.

That is just trash....on what basis is this founded!?

Snip


*Claps* that is possibly the best analogy i've ever read. I knew that we were building the bomb 1940~ and then we handed the project over to the Americans, but I never ever thought of a British deployment. It is, in fact, an interesting idea and it could have been possible (highly more likely than any of these GERMANY INVAEDZ BRITERN COS OF BOMBING AERFEILDS ideas) and although the UK would reign supreme once again.. I don't know if I'd like to live in that world.

Asbena, you just said it was trash with no proof, no evidence, not even a reason why. Why is it trash? There is nothing there that is illogical, nothing that makes no sense. It is in fact, quite a possible analogy.

Kreynoria']Bullshit. The USSR depended on the US for supplies, and us crippling German industry. Especially in a two-front war and without Hitler's idiotic interference, the USSR would be beaten. Then Britain is doomed.

I really can't see a long-term alliance between Germany and Japan. Thus I see three competing powers: Nazi Germany and its European allies (Italy, Hungary, Finland, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Romania), Japan and its empire, and the U.S. and the remnants of the British empire (Canada, Australia, South Africa, India, etc.) along with maybe a few Latin American nations.

No, your bullshit. The USSR needed US supplies, but could have continued with them, albeit at a alower pace. And there could well have been an alliance between Germany and Japan; not a long one, but enough for them to turn the conflict to their side and then eventually turn on each other.

Easy.

Japan stays out. The USSR is unable to recall its siberian divisions from the east to defend moscow. Spring 1942 moscow falls.

Soviet war industry is moved east by this time, and the germans are operating at the extreme edge of their communications. Soviet industry also suffers from the lack of horizontal integration with the allies that is would otherwise be able to achieve under lend-lease, and therefore is unable to produce the amount of war material that it actually did.

Similarly German war industry becomes similarly strained as it attempts to gain production parity with a far larger industrial base - even with the use of forced labour. Despite this, as it is not suffering the disruption to communications and manufacturing inflicted upon it by the 1943 allied bombing campaign, it is able to match the Soviets in war-fighting capacity on the front lines. Though it lacks the strength to mount further major offensives.

Both sides reach a bloody stalemate and batter each other to exhaustion over the next six or seven years. Both sides are unable to deliver a killing blow.

Further, because of the strain on the resources and capacities of both nations, neither are able to realistically implement/deploy any dramatically revolutionary new weapons. The pace of technological improvement for the arsenals of both sides crawls to a halt.

Meanwhile, the UK tube alloys group - in conjunction with the US, develop the first fissile bomb. As it is officially 'neutral' the US is unwilling/cannot deploy it: Foreseeing this possibility however, churchill orders that the program should be replicated in secret at the calder hall site in cumbria and, by 1946, the UK has managed to produce an unknown number of working models of these weapons clandestinely - codename "tango". Addtionally the UK, unable to maintain further intensive combat operations after the reconquest of north africa because of the logistical impossibility of invading mainland Europe, has been able to employ excess war time industrial capacity to develop and deploy a jet assisted long range strategic heavy bomber, slightly exceeding the perfomance of the convair b-36 bomber.

1 Jan. 1947. The RAF advanced weapons group drops tango on berlin. Exact casualty figures are unknown. Hitler believed killed in the Nuclear inferno dead.

2. Jan 1947. Germany seeks armistice with UK. UK responds by insisting upon a complete unconditional surrender.

4. Jan 1947. Hamburg destroyed. (Again. LOL).

5. Jan 1947. Germany surrenders to the UK. All combat operations on the Eastern front suspended.

The Map of Europe is now redrawn. A crippled and sick USSR is forced to accept a return to the Brest-Litov line. Churchill further insists upon independence for southern russia (the Ukraine). The polish government in exile returns to warsaw from London.

As a neutered USSR now poses no threat, germany is split up into several distinct zones, and de-industrialzed. Horror at hitler's successful implementation of the so-called "final soloution" is so great that anti-german feeling is whips into a frenzy in liberated france and the war weary UK. Many germans die in the subsequent famine as allies refuse to provide food aid to the shattered german economy. Printing or distribution of literature in german is made illegal in the occupied zones, and depending upon whether the respective zones fall under the administration of Candian, UK, AusNZ or Libre France, an official "french only" or "english only" language policy it put in place. The intention is the complete destruction of german culture.

Labour is returned to office in the UK in the general election imeadiately follwing the War and the UK repudiates its war debts, telling the US "Molon Labe". Both nations have stockpiles of unknown size of strategic nuclear arms - and the ability to deploy them with intercontinental bombers. The US is therefore forced to accept this, causing chaos in financial markets and pushing the US back into the great depression.

Unecumbered by war debts the UK is able to strengthen its ties with the rest of the commonwealth, and correct many past injustices with its colonies. The UK and its commonwealth go on to become the worlds sole superpower. The US, and the USSR, weaker than they would have otherwise been, are unable to loot the post war world, and both wither on the vine, becoming middle ranked powers.

The french continue to enjoy a high standard of living, and the world's shortest work week.

As usual. Italy is forgiven.

The end.
That is utterly and entirely bullshit. There's no reason the British people would want to kill off the German culture NOR would they have randomly turned on the United States. The U.K. had neither the physical resources nor the mental resources to develop nuclear weapons at that pace. Frankly, this reeks of German hate and British arrogance. Try again.

That is just trash....on what basis is this founded!?

Better trash than yours is old boy. Actualy, it's quite realistic in its premise.

BTW, my grandfather commanded a battalion of an assault regiment, and his recollection was one of universal contempt for the quality of the equipment they received from the West. The equipment, armoured vehicles in particular, was a joke, being completely unsuited to either extreme cold or extreme mud.

About the only decent stuff they got were half-tracks, and the Red Army moved most of its equipment by rail anyway. Railway gone? They'd build one.

I say, thats rather good. Did you come up with that on your own, or with books? It's rather concise, except one thing. Whats to stop Japan invading Southern Russia once it and Germany have butted heads and bled each other dry?

I made it up just now. I'm glad you like it. :)

I d/k about japan. I imagine they are pre-occupied with the US.

Kreynoria']Bullshit. The USSR depended on the US for supplies, and us crippling German industry. Especially in a two-front war and without Hitler's idiotic interference, the USSR would be beaten. Then Britain is doomed.

I really can't see a long-term alliance between Germany and Japan. Thus I see three competing powers: Nazi Germany and its European allies (Italy, Hungary, Finland, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Romania), Japan and its empire, and the U.S. and the remnants of the British empire (Canada, Australia, South Africa, India, etc.) along with maybe a few Latin American nations.

Actually Japan would have been truthful....as they wanted to destroy china but their leadership was horrible and they were ill-prepared for it. If they had focused 100% on China it may have been a different story.

That is utterly and entirely bullshit. There's no reason the British people would want to kill off the German culture NOR would they have randomly turned on the United States. The U.K. had neither the physical resources nor the mental resources to develop nuclear weapons at that pace. Frankly, this reeks of German hate and British arrogance. Try again.

No, it isn't bullshit. Churchill would have been quite harsh to the Germans anyway - it's been noted in Cabinet Office records that he often wanted to go extreme in several ways with the German popuation. Also, it doesn't say Britain turns on the US, merely that they ignore them as they didn't fight. The UK also did have the physical and mental resources to build the bomb - note the later deployment date and help from the US. Read it properly.

That is utterly and entirely bullshit. There's no reason the British people would want to kill off the German culture NOR would they have randomly turned on the United States. The U.K. had neither the physical resources nor the mental resources to develop nuclear weapons at that pace. Frankly, this reeks of German hate and British arrogance. Try again.

Um, yes it would. We knew we owed the Americans - and with us holding the bomb, and have used it - what capability or basis would the US, who did not get the economic or military rush from the war, have to stop us?

And Germany having 'started' 2 World Wars, I don't find the culture theory entirely impossible, either. They probably wouldnt' be trusted helluva lot.

BTW, my grandfather commanded a battalion of an assault regiment, and his recollection was one of universal contempt for the quality of the equipment they received from the West. The equipment, armoured vehicles in particular, was a joke, being completely unsuited to either extreme cold or extreme mud.

About the only decent stuff they got were half-tracks, and the Red Army moved most of its equipment by rail anyway. Railway gone? They'd build one.

Really? What regiment, TG? Where did he serve, if you don't mind me asking.

No, your bullshit. The USSR needed US supplies, but could have continued with them, albeit at a alower pace. And there could well have been an alliance between Germany and Japan; not a long one, but enough for them to turn the conflict to their side and then eventually turn on each other.


The fact was, without Hitler's bungling interference the war on the Eastern Front could have been won. Had he left the front in the hands of Manstein, Guderian, and other capable leaders, things could have been more succesful for the Germans.

Better trash than yours is old boy. Actualy, it's quite realistic in its premise.

Without the US...are you forgetting the A-bomb projects in both Japan and Germany that would have been completed? They would use them to ensure compliance on the rest of the world.

Kreynoria']The fact was, without Hitler's bungling interference the war on the Eastern Front could have been won. Had he left the front in the hands of Manstein, Guderian, and other capable leaders, things could have been more succesful for the Germans.

Yes; but in no historical counterfactual with the possible exception of an accelerated Stauffenberg plot would Hitler have stopped doing this. Thus, that is immaterial.

Without the US...are you forgetting the A-bomb projects in both Japan and Germany that would have been completed? They would use them to ensure compliance on the rest of the world.

I doubt either the German or Japanese governments would have had them any sooner than Britain in '47, like Lacadaemon's counterfactual says

Easy.I doubt they would have bombed Berlin though. Likes the US in reality, they would have bombed strategic, but minor cities... or Dresden c.c

No, it isn't bullshit. Churchill would have been quite harsh to the Germans anyway - it's been noted in Cabinet Office records that he often wanted to go extreme in several ways with the German popuation. Also, it doesn't say Britain turns on the US, merely that they ignore them as they didn't fight. The UK also did have the physical and mental resources to build the bomb - note the later deployment date and help from the US. Read it properly.

IOW....Britain couldn't of done it or had it unless it was for the Americans who built the bomb out of sheer will to beat the Germans in harnessing it as a weapon. (By 1947 America, Germany and Japan would all have the bomb)

Germany in 1945-1946, Japan in 1945-1946, America 1946-1947+ (if not for pressure by war)

I doubt they would have bombed Berlin though. Likes the US in reality, they would have bombed strategic, but minor cities... or Dresden c.c

Actually, in most counterfactuals I've read of this type, the allied power with the bomb does target Berlin, for military and symbolic purposes, and to try and off Hitler.

IOW....Britain couldn't of done it or had it unless it was for the Americans who built the bomb out of sheer will to beat the Germans in harnessing it as a weapon. (By 1947 America, Germany and Japan would all have the bomb)

Germany in 1945-1946, Japan in 1945-1946, America 1946-1947+ (if not for pressure by war)

We were beginning production of the bomb in 1940.. we handed the project over to the Americans because we didn't have the neccessary resources.

I doubt either the German or Japanese governments would have had them any sooner than Britain in '47, like Lacadaemon's counterfactual says

Germany and Japan would have. Japan possibly before Germany with the rumors and reported detonation of a nuclear weapon by Japan on August 12th 1945.

IOW....Britain couldn't of done it or had it unless it was for the Americans who built the bomb out of sheer will to beat the Germans in harnessing it as a weapon. (By 1947 America, Germany and Japan would all have the bomb)

Germany in 1945-1946, Japan in 1945-1946, America 1946-1947+ (if not for pressure by war)

Like the counterfactual said, with US help and the Germans being bled dry. Where would Japan have got the enriched Uranium from?

That is utterly and entirely bullshit. There's no reason the British people would want to kill off the German culture NOR would they have randomly turned on the United States. The U.K. had neither the physical resources nor the mental resources to develop nuclear weapons at that pace. Frankly, this reeks of German hate and British arrogance. Try again.

Calm down. I'm just speculating. And I though it would be a different take to the usual "OMFG, teh USSR".

As to the rest of your objections. In 1940, the british probably had the most developed A-bomb project - indeed the british were the first to realize that it would only require a few pounds of Uranium. Given that british scientists were involved at every step of the manhattan project, and that the british government was given full updates, it is not unreasonable to believe that they could develop a secret parallel program. Especially if they were relieved from having to build up to d-day.

As to destroying germany, well, I suggest you check out the winter of 45-46, and some of the plans that were floated right after the war. Possibly, had the Nazi's continued with their death camps, and lacking a strong USSR to provide the impetus to re-arm and re-industrialize western germany, something along those lines could have happened.

Indeed, google the morgenthau plan sometime.

Edit: And the post war labour government contained some highly anti-US factions. Given that the US did not participate during the war, and that the UK probably would have amassed unsustainable debts by that point, I can see debt repudiation possibly. I did not however, suggest, that they would go to war.

We were beginning production of the bomb in 1940.. we handed the project over to the Americans because we didn't have the neccessary resources.

Britain didn't have it, but remember it was a MASSIVE project that was unseen in any era before or even after it that was done in TOTAL secrecy. Even then we got a working one in 1945. >.>

Britain didn't have it, but remember it was a MASSIVE project that was unseen in any era before or even after it that was done in TOTAL secrecy. Even then we got a working one in 1945. >.>

What? What the hell's that got to do with anything? Britain would still have made it with US help ahead of the Germans and Japanese.

Without the US...are you forgetting the A-bomb projects in both Japan and Germany that would have been completed? They would use them to ensure compliance on the rest of the world.

Bah. Germany and Japan were years from a bomb. Heisenberg still believed at the end of the war that it would require tonnes of Uranium.

Of course, I am assuming here that the US actually provides most of the industrial level research. However, because of the UK's close connections with the project, it is able to steal it in toto, very easily.

Like the counterfactual said, with US help and the Germans being bled dry. Where would Japan have got the enriched Uranium from?

Apparently they made it themselves or it was shipped over by U-boat. As we did find uranium in U-232 (I think it was that one....) that was headed to Japan.

Apparently they made it themselves or it was shipped over by U-boat. As we did find uranium in U-232 (I think it was that one....) that was headed to Japan.

True, but that would have been difficult, especially with a Germany bled dry from fighting the USSR; saring any for the Japanese would have been unlikely, and taken years if so.

What? What the hell's that got to do with anything? Britain would still have made it with US help ahead of the Germans and Japanese.

Somewhat doubtful of what I read, though if you want I can cite some sources...but little hard evidence exists on it.

True, but that would have been difficult, especially with a Germany bled dry from fighting the USSR; saring any for the Japanese would have been unlikely, and taken years if so.

Supposively they detonated the test one on August 12th....1945. Hardly years afterwards.

Supposively they detonated the test one on August 12th....1945. Hardly years afterwards.

What sources are there for that?

Really? What regiment, TG? Where did he serve, if you don't mind me asking.
99th Heavy Howitzer Artillery Brigade, 5th Artillery Breakthrough Corps, 39th Army. :)

He served under Moscow, on the Ukrainian Front (for a very long time because it was a complete bloodbath), Koenigsberg, the Manchurian Offensive and North Korea.

He was not however at Kursk or Stalingrad.

99th Heavy Howitzer Artillery Brigade, 5th Artillery Breakthrough Corps, 39th Army. :)

He served under Moscow, on the Ukrainian Front (for a very long time because it was a complete bloodbath), Koenigsberg, the Manchurian Offensive and North Korea.

He was not however at Kursk or Stalingrad.

Holy [Censored] thats a lot of places. Did he by chance write any memoirs?

What sources are there for that?

Gathering info

BTW, my grandfather commanded a battalion of an assault regiment, and his recollection was one of universal contempt for the quality of the equipment they received from the West. The equipment, armoured vehicles in particular, was a joke, being completely unsuited to either extreme cold or extreme mud.

About the only decent stuff they got were half-tracks, and the Red Army moved most of its equipment by rail anyway. Railway gone? They'd build one.

Ah so the army was fully equipped? Even a crappy tank and rifle can still kill people. They still put stuff to use.

If they didn't need then why did they take it? I know my grandmothers boyfriend probably would have liked avoid the Murmansk runs he did.....

Ah so the army was fully equipped? Even a crappy tank and rifle can still kill people. They still put stuff to use.

If they didn't need then why did they take it? I know my grandmothers boyfriend probably would have liked avoid the Murmansk runs he did.....

Because they didn't just get tanks; they got food and everything the allies could send. The vehicles were just shoddy by Russian warfare standards.

http://vikingphoenix.com/public/JapanIncorporated/1895-1945/jp-abomb.htm
http://39th.org/39th/hc/hc_japan_a_bomb.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atomic_program

Japan's Secret War: Japan's Race Against Time to Build Its Own Atomic Bomb by Robert K. Wilcox

And possibly one of the nicest I found:
http://www.reformation.org/atlanta-constitution.html

Though I am sure this is enough for the moment. :D

http://vikingphoenix.com/public/JapanIncorporated/1895-1945/jp-abomb.htm
http://39th.org/39th/hc/hc_japan_a_bomb.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atomic_program

Japan's Secret War: Japan's Race Against Time to Build Its Own Atomic Bomb by Robert K. Wilcox

And possibly one of the nicest I found:
http://www.reformation.org/atlanta-constitution.html

Though I am sure this is enough for the moment. :D

Hmmm, very interesting. It would have been a race then, although the Brits might have had the edge in numbers, as uranium would have been harder for the Japs to come by.

Because they didn't just get tanks; they got food and everything the allies could send. The vehicles were just shoddy by Russian warfare standards.

Very true, but you also must note that the Russian military produced the most weapons the FASTEST for the war, they were amazing at it for their economy and population size.

4. Jan 1947. Hamburg destroyed. (Again. LOL).
Apart from the obvious question how the British bombers would be able to cross Germany if there hadn't been years of air war that ultimately saw the Luftwaffe destroyed...

YAY! I got a mention! :rolleyes:

Hmmm, very interesting. It would have been a race then, although the Brits might have had the edge in numbers, as uranium would have been harder for the Japs to come by.


Japan developed and successfully tested an atomic bomb three days prior to the end of the war.

In 1931 Dr. Nishina received his own laboratory at the Institute of Physical and Chemical Research. In 1936 this facility built a 26-inch cyclotron. Nishina knew that building a uranium bomb was possible and fearful that the Americans were already at work on such a bomb. In 1937, Nishina had a 220-ton 60-inch cyclotron built. By October of 1940 Lt. General Takeo Yasuda of the Japanese
Army concluded that building such a bomb was practical so by July of 1941 the program was funded. B-29 raids hampered the final work to a point that in early 1945 that some equipment is believed to have been shipped to Konan, Korea, which was not under attack.


Wilcox says documents suggest Japan's military took over the program late in the war with help from Japanese industry and built the separators. He says Japan searched for uranium, buying $25 million worth in China.

"We lost three months in the transfer," Snell quoted him as saying. "We would have had (the bomb) three months earlier if it had not been for the B-29."

Lots of uranium floating around...lots of cyclotrons and even heavy water.....Japan started this project early!

Apart from the obvious question how the British bombers would be able to cross Germany if there hadn't been years of air war that ultimately saw the Luftwaffe destroyed...

YAY! I got a mention! :rolleyes:

Didn't mean the Germans had no anti air...but what's that mean?

Apart from the obvious question how the British bombers would be able to cross Germany if there hadn't been years of air war that ultimately saw the Luftwaffe destroyed...

YAY! I got a mention! :rolleyes:

The B-36 (and I'm assuming that's what the delivery vehicle was based on/similar too), is capable of flying above any 1940s fighter cover (jet or piston engine).

It's not very accurate, but I don't suppose that matters.

Didn't mean the Germans had no anti air...but what's that mean?
Lacadaemon and I had some previous...discussions about the reasonability and justification for Allied bombing of German civilians.

I am originally from Hamburg, and my grandparents lived through Operation Gomorrah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gomorrah).

So I think the "LOL" was for me, but that's just a suspicion.

So I think the "LOL" was for me, but that's just a suspicion.

Actually, it wasn't.

More I was just noting that hamburg had already had the shit bombed out of it, and it's questionable how much more it could be "destroyed."

As the second largest city, it's an obvious target though.

The B-36 (and I'm assuming that's what the delivery vehicle was based on/similar too), is capable of flying above any 1940s fighter cover (jet or piston engine).

It's not very accurate, but I don't suppose that matters.


The B-36, an intercontinental bomber, was designed during WW II. The airplane made its maiden flight on August 8, 1946 and on June 26, 1948 the Strategic Air Command received its first B-36 for operational use.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap39.htm

It wouldn't have been ready.

Lacadaemon and I had some previous...discussions about the reasonability and justification for Allied bombing of German civilians.

I am originally from Hamburg, and my grandparents lived through Operation Gomorrah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gomorrah).

So I think the "LOL" was for me, but that's just a suspicion.

Well...I think I just sunk that b-36 'discussion' XD

Soviet Union from Atlantic to Pacific, and eventually the whole world

Hardly. Without a heavy Western front to worry about, Germany would have been able to devote all of it's resources into a Russian invasion. Russia was barely holding off a split German force up until mid-war, and with the entire German military after it, Russia would easily lose. Stalingrad would be run over, several neutralizing Russia. It is doubtful that the Germans would have the resources, however, to invade straight through to the Pacific. However, without a South-Pacific assault to worry about, the Japanese then could be major pressure on Russia's east, crushing the Russian navy and much of the Eastern part of Russia. Russia would either be conquered completely, or severely neutralized. After this, Germany would then be able to devote it's time and resources to a British invasion. The Brits were already strained thin, and probably wouln't have been able to withstand a major German Invasion.

Also, there are several more implication. Almost the entire jewish population would be destroyed had we not gotten involved. The Holocaust was bad enough, however it would have been far worse had Germany won the war. After killing of the jews, he would likely go after the Slavs, followed by more than likely the Muslims(Who strangely enough, although were considered far inferior, actually fought in Greece for Germany), and every other "inferior" race. You thought the Holocaust or the Russians were bad? Imagine the devastation had Germany won the war.

The Germans would also have been able to create "The Bomb". They were already well into the research of the atomic bomb, and were likely only a few years from achieving this. Imagine the destruction had they been able to acheive this?

Let's not even get to what would happen when the Germans(and they eventually would) would come to America.

The world, easily, would have succumb to Germany.

It wouldn't have been ready.
Maybe something else would have.

But at any rate, there are many strange prototypes the Germans built, they were always busy with the research. So it's likely that there might have been all sorts of contraptions to attack a bomber even at 14 km height.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachem_Ba_349_Natter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_263
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_I-270

The world, easily, would have succumb to Germany.

Even if your scenerio was possible, you make the great assumption the Soviets would have stopped fighting.

Germany would have had to keep a Gigantic Army in the USSR to keep them in line.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap39.htm

It wouldn't have been ready.

That's only because it's production was not a priority, as there was no immeadiate need for it.

Something like it was quite possible for the British aircraft industry in 46/47, especially if they had the plans (or had ordered it and helped Convair in the same way that the P51 was developed).

-snip-
Japan had the bomb before Germany and even tested it. :)

Maybe something else would have.

But at any rate, there are many strange prototypes the Germans built, they were always busy with the research. So it's likely that there might have been all sorts of contraptions to attack a bomber even at 14 km height.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachem_Ba_349_Natter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_263
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_I-270

As I said in my hypothetical, Germany's deployment of exotic weapons crawls to a halt as more and more of its resources are consumed in a life or death stalemate in the east.

That's only because it's production was not a priority, as there was no immeadiate need for it.

Something like it was quite possible for the British aircraft industry in 46/47, especially if they had the plans (or had ordered it and helped Convair in the same way that the P51 was developed).

But its maiden flight was already late 1946. It was designed and done in a large part in wartime. I'd say early 1947 at the EARLIEST for it though.

As I said in my hypothetical, Germany's deployment of exotic weapons crawls to a halt as more and more of its resources are consumed in a life or death stalemate in the east.

Remember this would be no America still in it. So the bomber wouldn't even exist in it at that point, and even if it was if the war had carried on into 1946 the jets would have been ready. Germany even planned for a suicidal jet like the Japanese.

(Ya...japan has suicidal jets and other jet fighters for Ketsu-go....when we get into that. )

Even if your scenerio was possible, you make the great assumption the Soviets would have stopped fighting.

Germany would have had to keep a Gigantic Army in the USSR to keep them in line.

True. However, it is also possible that the Russians could have done what happened in WW1-A rebellion to overthrow Stalin and get out of the war. Of course, this assumes that the Russians would stop fight after a German attack on "Russian" soil(Actually it was initially Poland, but the propaganda can make people believe anything).

And even if it wouldn't happen like my scenario, it still would have been far worse off for the rest of the world. Russia almost definately wouldn't have been able to take on Germany almost by itself(The Brits were already being stretched to desperation by the time the US got involved), and it would also have the entirety of Japan on its ass, several testing Russian resolve. I'm not terribly sure Russia could take a full German/Japanese assault.


Japan had the bomb before Germany and even tested it.


Yes, however that is thinking in a post-WWII mindset. If german had been able to continue testing, who know what could have happened?

But its maiden flight was already late 1946. It was designed and done in a large part in wartime. I'd say early 1947 at the EARLIEST for it though.

Because there was no impetus to rush its production. It wasn't a priority system, especially with the focus on building fleets of B-29s.

Anyway, these objections are trivial. As is the suggestion that japan would have had the bomb. No-one in the axis had any clue as to the amount of Uranium needed, or the relevant physical properties of the respective isotopes.

Winning the battle of the atlantic is more problematic.

(Ya...japan has suicidal jets and other jet fighters for Ketsu-go....when we get into that. )
They were German designs, you know. Pretty much everything new the Japanese had near the end of the war came from Germany.

Holy [Censored] thats a lot of places. Did he by chance write any memoirs?
Yes. Handwritten in notebooks still at his family home in the Siberian far east with a bunch of other stuff. Never translated. Sometimes I wish I could, but they're out of reach and obtaining facsimilies is tricky under the circumstances.

But there are a load of stories there which have never been told before, the perspective of an officer on everyday life, rather than the grand strategic visions. For example a WW1-style static trench network built above ground from frozen corpses, because the ground was frozen too hard to dig. I'm guessing late 1943. :(

The massacre of 40 punishment battalions in advance of a major offensive, sent to probe the enemy lines, the artillery conducting a very weak barrage not to support, but to zero in the guns on the flashes of fire from the German positions firing all-out, oblivious to the Russians' real intentions. When the real barrage came, their first salvos obliterated the entire German forward line.

And Koenigsberg, where the assault regiment lived up to its name and flattened a path through the city several blocks wide. They pushed the 152mm howitzers over rubble by hand, destroying a row of buildings with time-delay shells ensuring an explosion deep inside the buildings. Then the gun crews would push the guns onto the piles of rubble and fire upon the next row of buildings. It took them 4 days and nights to chop the city in half for the tanks. A decade later, he returned to find a row of tower blocks strung out along the path he cut. The art treasures the Nazis looted from Russia "disappeared mysteriously" during the siege - a mystery to this day, but I am confident they were destroyed.

Afterwards they were ordered to use up their solid-core anti-armour shells on the docks, where thousands of German soldiers and civilians had gathered, hoping to escape. In the absence of explosions, they were killed by the pressure gradients of the descending shells. A massacre born of bureaucracy, conducted because that ammunition type was being phased out, and remaining stocks were to be expended.

Then the Manchurian Offensive, where after the Eastern Front experience, regiments destroyed divisions without losses.

So much history there. I suspect a lot of people in the USSR wrote stuff down, but none of it could ever be published.

Ah so the army was fully equipped? Even a crappy tank and rifle can still kill people. They still put stuff to use.

If they didn't need then why did they take it? I know my grandmothers boyfriend probably would have liked avoid the Murmansk runs he did...
They used what they were ordered to use, but avoided using it whenever possible. A crap tank won't kill anyone but a good crew. He spoke of a great deal of resentment about that sort of thing. Even on the Eastern Front life was valued, at least by career soldiers with a feeling of responsibility for their men.

Remember this would be no America still in it. So the bomber wouldn't even exist in it at that point, and even if it was if the war had carried on into 1946 the jets would have been ready. Germany even planned for a suicidal jet like the Japanese.

(Ya...japan has suicidal jets and other jet fighters for Ketsu-go....when we get into that. )

Yes, but this is a B-36 like bomber. The british build it, as part of their strategic weapons program. The americans don't actually build it. It's either ordered from convair, at the behest of the british, or built by AVRO - either in the UK or Canada.

Yes, however that is thinking in a post-WWII mindset. If german had been able to continue testing, who know what could have happened?
The Nuclear Bomb wasn't considered important by the German leadership, and thus it wasn't pushed like the V-missiles and that sort of thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_program

Because there was no impetus to rush its production. It wasn't a priority system, especially with the focus on building fleets of B-29s.

Anyway, these objections are trivial. As is the suggestion that japan would have had the bomb. No-one in the axis had any clue as to the amount of Uranium needed, or the relevant physical properties of the respective isotopes.

Winning the battle of the atlantic is more problematic.

And also the B-29 could do the bomb drop itself. :P


They were German designs, you know. Pretty much everything new the Japanese had near the end of the war came from Germany.

Course I knew. :) Though Japan had a nasty way of making everything better....and learning it insanely fast.

The Nuclear Bomb wasn't considered important by the German leadership, and thus it wasn't pushed like the V-missiles and that sort of thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_program

Actually Hitler wanted to drop the nuke on New York....that plan changed when they began to lose and his dream never would be a reality....so they helped Japan with all the excess uranium they had. As a result Japan managed to do what Germany could not do....and on a smaller budget under bombing and relocation and in total secrecy so much so that even today its barely coming out.

Here's a question, why was America developing the bomb if they weren't involved in the war?

I have a theory, What if the German High command decided that operation Sea Lion would go ahead after the strikes against Russia?

I heard some were that if that happened the entire German Invasion force would have been almost completely destroyed but most of Kent would be destroyed with tens of thousand of Civilians dead.

(Now back to the Fictional part) This would allow the Russians to brake the German offensive and the war in Europe would be over by 1948 but all of Germany and all former German territory to the East would be in soviet hands if the US would not get involved.

Italy would properly have rebelled against their leadership after the Fall of Berlin in 1946, Joining the Allies but at the cost of their Empire (Libya, Ethiopia and Somalia.)

France and the Lower countries would have been freed by combined Free-Europe Units but the Large bulk of the forces would be British Commonwealth Conscripts.

I have not factored in Japan Joining the war as their greatest rival was the US, however if they had Britain would have lost Burma and small parts of eastern India. The fighting would become more defensive and eventually become very similar to 1914-1918 Western Front trench warfare until British Reinforcements arrive after Europe is 'Liberated'.

In Australia, Darwin and the surrounding country fall to the Japanese but a large force of Australian Militia (Mainly old men, boys and Aboriginal's) fight the Japanese to a stand still as Wave after wave of Banzai Charges are defeated by veterans of the Boar war's who use trench style warfare for defense. Many were Poorly armed but whose who didn't have a rifle or shotgun where given spears or sharp sticks.

The 'Siege' lasts for over 5-8 month's until Royal Navy warships and reinforcements arrive from Europe and Africa, the Royal Navy hunts down and sinks the Supply ships and the big gun battleships level Darwin with the Japanese garrison making one last sucidal charge at the Australian lines loosing thousand of men.

A war in the Pacific has no end in sight (That I can see).

I have a theory, What if the German High command decided that operation Sea Lion would go ahead after the strikes against Russia?

I heard some were that if that happened the entire German Invasion force would have been almost completely destroyed but most of Kent would be destroyed with tens of thousand of Civilians dead.

(Now back to the Fictional part) This would allow the Russians to brake the German offensive and the war in Europe would be over by 1948 but all of Germany and all former German territory to the East would be in soviet hands if the US would not get involved.

Italy would properly have rebelled against their leadership after the Fall of Berlin in 1946, Joining the Allies but at the cost of their Empire (Libya, Ethiopia and Somalia.)

France and the Lower countries would have been freed by combined Free-Europe Units but the Large bulk of the forces would be British Commonwealth Conscripts.

I have not factored in Japan Joining the war as their greatest rival was the US, however if they had Britain would have lost Burma and small parts of eastern India. The fighting would become more defensive and eventually become very similar to 1914-1918 Western Front trench warfare until British Reinforcements arrive after Europe is 'Liberated'.

In Australia, Darwin and the surrounding country fall to the Japanese but a large force of Australian Militia (Mainly old men, boys and Aboriginal's) fight the Japanese to a stand still as Wave after wave of Banzai Charges are defeated by veterans of the Boar war's who use trench style warfare for defense. Many were Poorly armed but whose who didn't have a rifle or shotgun where given spears or sharp sticks.

The 'Siege' lasts for over 5-8 month's until Royal Navy warships and reinforcements arrive from Europe and Africa, the Royal Navy hunts down and sinks the Supply ships and the big gun battleships level Darwin with the Japanese garrison making one last sucidal charge at the Australian lines loosing thousand of men.

A war in the Pacific has no end in sight (That I can see).

Your premise of this is wrong though. Italy was under the control of Mussolini and at least until his FORCEFUL removal from power and end of Italian military power, it would not have stopped.

Japan really didn't need or want Australia that badly they needed the phillpines though and all the oil they could get. Though without American presence Australia would have been overwhelmed easily as the Japanese navy was too powerful.

Actually Hitler wanted to drop the nuke on New York....that plan changed when they began to lose and his dream never would be a reality....so they helped Japan with all the excess uranium they had. As a result Japan managed to do what Germany could not do....and on a smaller budget under bombing and relocation and in total secrecy so much so that even today its barely coming out.

Bomb with irradiated particles, possibly radioactive sand spread through a conventional explosion. Not an actual nuke.

(Can someone verify this? (My statement.) I'm pretty sure... )

Without US involvement:
If Britain fell, which it might without US support, the war in Russia would be a massive bloodfest, with Germans making advances in the summer, and the Russians counterattacking in winter. Russia would likely defeat Germany, as the Russians outnumbered the Germans, and conscripting people from occupied Europe would result in mass defections.

Meanwhile, the rest of the British Empire would slowly break apart. India would be the first to gain independence, and which side would Gandhi take? He may have been a pacifist, but he was no fool. India would declare war on the Axis, and if India sent troops to fight in China, they might be able to roll back the Japanese. The Japanese would have given up on Southeast Asia in the face of an Indian threat to their forces in China.

An interesting question is, once the British Mandate in Palestine expired in 1948, would Israel come into existence? They wouldn't have the influx of Holocaust refugees, but without the stable nations of Egypt, Iraq, or Syria to fight on the Arab side, the Israelis might win anyway. Given the threat of Vichy France in Syria, and the Italians moving through Egypt, the Jews might even ally with Arab nationalists to fight the Axis. The Mufti of Jerusalem would probably be assassinated by the Irgun.

The long-term result of the war would be the depopulation of Europe through years of war, the collapse of the British Empire, and the rise of Japan and India as postwar powers.

Here's a question, why was America developing the bomb if they weren't involved in the war?

They were planning on entering the war a long time before Pearl Harbour. They saw that the war in Europe was dragging on too long, and Japan was also bugging them, so they were just looking for an excuse to get into the action. Of course, then, secretly, they develop weapons even though they still say they're isolationists. And then, Pearl Harbour happened, and Truman got what he wanted, and pulled the US into the war.

Japan really didn't need or want Australia that badly they needed the phillpines though and all the oil they could get. Though without American presence Australia would have been overwhelmed easily as the Japanese navy was too powerful.

Then why lose thousands of troops trying to take Port Moresby?

Because there was no impetus to rush its production. It wasn't a priority system, especially with the focus on building fleets of B-29s.

Anyway, these objections are trivial. As is the suggestion that japan would have had the bomb. No-one in the axis had any clue as to the amount of Uranium needed, or the relevant physical properties of the respective isotopes.

Winning the battle of the atlantic is more problematic.

Neither did anyone in the Allies. Nobody knew how to really make one work, and there was a lot of guessing going on. The only people who knew anything about what they were doing weren't sure if what they were doing was going to work. Infact, many of the scientists involved had serious concerns that after initiating the reactor, it would blow up all of Chicago. Nobody knew much of anything about how to do it, if it would work, or what would happen.

In wargames conducted at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in 1974, which assumed the Luftwaffe has not yet won air supremacy, the Germans were able to establish a beachhead in England by using a minefield screen in the English Channel to protect the initial assualt. However, the German ground forces were delayed at the "Stop Lines" (e.g. the GHQ Line), a layered series of defensive positions that had been built, each a combination of British Home Guard troops and physical barriers. At the same time the regular troops of the British Army were forming up. After only a few days, the Royal Navy was able to reach the Channel from Scapa Flow where they cut off supplies to German troops in England and prevented further reinforcement. Isolated and facing regular troops with armour and artillery the invasion force was forced to surrender.

A mass invasion by sea however, may not have been necessary. In British wartime cabinet documents released in 1998, it was revealed that after the failure of the British Expeditionary Force in France and its evacuation at Dunkirk, Winston Churchill had lost support in the cabinet and in Parliament. Had the Royal Air Force been defeated by the Luftwaffe, Churchill may have been replaced as Prime Minister by Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax, who was believed to be in favour of peace negotiations with Germany rather than face a civilian bloodbath on British soil.

What do you think of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sealion

They were planning on entering the war a long time before Pearl Harbour. They saw that the war in Europe was dragging on too long, and Japan was also bugging them, so they were just looking for an excuse to get into the action. Of course, then, secretly, they develop weapons even though they still say they're isolationists. And then, Pearl Harbour happened, and Truman got what he wanted, and pulled the US into the war.

Uh... FDR was president at the time. But still, same basic principal. Many people in the FDR administration knew they needed to get in the war, but didn't have a reason to pull the populace into support. Then Pearl Harbor happened, and we were willing to fight.

Then why lose thousands of troops trying to take Port Moresby?

A key point to keep the Americans out and stop the transit of goods. With no American force being present and no need to take out Australia's meager force it would have been easier to ignore it for the time being and deal with China.

-----------------------
Kyanges you see the sites I listed?

http://vikingphoenix.com/public/Japa...5/jp-abomb.htm
http://39th.org/39th/hc/hc_japan_a_bomb.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atomic_program

Japan's Secret War: Japan's Race Against Time to Build Its Own Atomic Bomb by Robert K. Wilcox

And possibly one of the nicest I found:
http://www.reformation.org/atlanta-constitution.html

Though I am sure this is enough for the moment

Would you mind printing out the last one for ND and the other non-believers at the table?

Uh... FDR was president at the time. But still, same basic principal. Many people in the FDR administration knew they needed to get in the war, but didn't have a reason to pull the populace into support. Then Pearl Harbor happened, and we were willing to fight.

sorry. I keep on getting the American presidents mixed up...*embarrassment*

Kyanges you see the sites I listed?



Would you mind printing out the last one for ND and the other non-believers at the table?


Asbena, the main reason I don't believe any of that is because the Japanese themselves have mentioned no word of it. You'd think that they would say something in this day and age.

Plus, the other sites aren't nearly credible enough to sway my opinion on this matter.

Asbena, the main reason I don't believe any of that is because the Japanese themselves have mentioned no word of it.

Plus, the other sites aren't nearly creidble enough to sway my opinion on this matter.

My sources give a reason for that. How about you read it. >.> Then you'll learn about how some of the scientists sealed themselves into the cave when they blew it to keep it hidden from the Russians.

My sources give a reason for that. How about you read it. >.> Then you'll learn about how some of the scientists sealed themselves into the cave when they blew it to keep it hidden from the Russians.

Ok, which one gives the reason?

sorry. I keep on getting the American presidents mixed up...*embarrassment*

It's actually a common mistake, really. Truman was VP under FDR, and after FDR died(Before the end of WWII), Truman was president for a few months, and was the one to order the drop on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

So, it's not that bad of a mistake. I've actually seen the mistake made by people many times.

Without US involvement:
If Britain fell, which it might without US support, the war in Russia would be a massive bloodfest, with Germans making advances in the summer, and the Russians counterattacking in winter. Russia would likely defeat Germany, as the Russians outnumbered the Germans, and conscripting people from occupied Europe would result in mass defections.

.

Problem here is that Russia was struggling severely for a good part of the war, and this was with only part of the German force. Had Germany been able to devote more of it's forces earlier, they could have overrun Russian forces fairly easily. And also, the Japanese would be putting pressure in the East, possibly forcing Russia to split it's forces to two fronts that are extremely far away. Trying to supply two fronts across several thousand miles could easily have crippled them.

Ok, which one gives the reason?
http://www.reformation.org/atlanta-constitution.html
This one gives one about how the Russians didn't get squat from the Japanese except partially destroyed papers and machines which were of no real use, but it does support what I said to ND and Res.

(Res being the idiot he is also decided that the largest possible ships that can ever be produced are also Yamato size for a battleship and Nimitz size for an aircraft carrier....mind clearing that up for me, he won't listen to reason about Pykrete and said even a solid block of Pykrete has a mass limit before it breaks on itself (even if its 3x wider then it is tall and is in the middle of the ocean I guess...))

I have more....but this one is the nicest link that I posted.

It's actually a common mistake, really. Truman was VP under FDR, and after FDR died(Before the end of WWII), Truman was president for a few months, and was the one to order the drop on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

So, it's not that bad of a mistake. I've actually seen the mistake made by people many times.

Okay. I have the Truman Doctrine floating in my head, and I remember that was right after WWII. Oh well, I still should've known it was FDR. :headbang:

Assbena, that still fails to explain why Japan now (As in, modern Japan.) has still not said that they did have a nuke in WWII.

Okay. I have the Truman Doctrine floating in my head, and I remember that was right after WWII. Oh well, I still should've known it was FDR. :headbang:

Aww...Lada *comfort*
Want to read the funniest thing about WWII in webchat form!?

Aww...Lada *comfort*
Want to read the funniest thing about WWII in webchat form!?
...


If World War Two had been an online Real Ttime Strategy game, the chat room traffic would have gone something like this.

*Hitler[AoE] has joined the game.*
*Eisenhower has joined the game.*
*paTTon has joined the game.*
*Churchill has joined the game.*
*benny-tow has joined the game.*
*T0J0 has joined the game.*
*Roosevelt has joined the game.*
*Stalin has joined the game.*
*deGaulle has joined the game.*
Roosevelt: hey sup
T0J0: y0
Stalin: hi
Churchill: hi
Hitler[AoE]: cool, i start with panzer tanks!
paTTon: lol more like panzy tanks
T0JO: lol
Roosevelt: o this fockin sucks i got a depression!
benny-tow: haha america sux
Stalin: hey hitler you dont fight me i dont fight u, cool?
Hitler[AoE]; sure whatever
Stalin: cool
deGaulle: **** Hitler rushed some1 help
Hitler[AoE]: lol byebye frenchy
Roosevelt: i dont got **** to help, sry
Churchill: wtf the luftwaffle is attacking me
Roosevelt: get antiair guns
Churchill: i cant afford them
benny-tow: u n00bs know what team talk is?
paTTon: stfu
Roosevelt: o yah hit the navajo button guys
deGaulle: eisenhower ur worthless come help me quick
Eisenhower: i cant do **** til rosevelt gives me an army
paTTon: yah hurry the fock up
Churchill: d00d im gettin pounded
deGaulle: this is fockin weak u guys suck
*deGaulle has left the game.*
Roosevelt: im gonna attack the axis k?
benny-tow: with what? ur wheelchair?
benny-tow: lol did u mess up ur legs AND ur head?
Hitler[AoE]: ROFLMAO
T0J0: lol o no america im comin 4 u
Roosevelt: wtf! thats bullsh1t u fags im gunna kick ur asses
T0JO: not without ur harbors u wont! lol
Roosevelt: u little biotch ill get u
Hitler[AoE]: wtf
Hitler[AoE]: america hax, u had depression and now u got a huge fockin army
Hitler[AoE]: thats bullsh1t u hacker
Churchill: lol no more france for u hitler
Hitler[AoE]: tojo help me!
T0J0: wtf u want me to do, im on the other side of the world retard
Hitler[AoE]: fine ill clear you a path
Stalin: WTF u arsshoel! WE HAD A FoCKIN TRUCE
Hitler[AoE]: i changed my mind lol
benny-tow: haha
benny-tow: hey ur losing ur guys in africa im gonna need help in italy soon sum1
T0J0: o **** i cant help u i got my hands full
Hitler[AoE]: im 2 busy 2 help
Roosevelt: yah thats right ***** im comin for ya
Stalin: church help me
Churchill: like u helped me before? sure ill just sit here
Stalin: dont be an arss
Churchill: dont be a commie. oops too late
Eisenhower: LOL
benny-tow: hahahh oh sh1t help
Hitler: o man ur focked
paTTon: oh what now biotch
Roosevelt: whos the cripple now lol
*benny-tow has been eliminated.*
benny-tow: lame
Roosevelt: gj patton
paTTon: thnx
Hitler[AoE]: WTF eisenhower hax hes killing all my sh1t
Hitler[AoE]: quit u hacker so u dont ruin my record
Eisenhower: Nuts!
benny~tow: wtf that mean?
Eisenhower: meant to say nutsack lol finger slipped
paTTon: coming to get u hitler u paper hanging hun cocksocker
Stalin: rofl
T0J0: HAHAHHAA
Hitler[AoE]: u guys are fockin gay
Hitler[AoE]: ur never getting in my city
*Hitler[AoE] has been eliminated.*
benny~tow: OMG u noob you killed yourself
Eisenhower: ROFLOLOLOL
Stalin: OMG LMAO!
Hitler[AoE]: WTF i didnt click there omg this game blows
*Hitler[AoE] has left the game*
paTTon: hahahhah
T0J0: WTF my teammates are n00bs
benny~tow: shut up noob
Roosevelt: haha wut a moron
paTTon: wtf am i gunna do now?
Eisenhower: yah me too
T0J0: why dont u attack me o thats right u dont got no ships lololol
Eisenhower: fock u
paTTon: lemme go thru ur base commie
Stalin: go to hell lol
paTTon: fock this sh1t im goin afk
Eisenhower: yah this is gay
*Roosevelt has left the game.*
Hitler[AoE]: wtf?
Eisenhower: sh1t now we need some1 to join
*tru_m4n has joined the game.*
tru_m4n: hi all
T0J0: hey
Stalin: sup
Churchill: hi
tru_m4n: OMG OMG OMG i got all his stuff!
tru_m4n: NUKES! HOLY **** I GOT NUKES
Stalin: d00d gimmie some plz
tru_m4n: no way i only got like a couple
Stalin: omg dont be gay gimmie nuculer secrets
T0J0: wtf is nukes?
T0J0: holy ****holy****hoyl****!
*T0J0 has been eliminated.*
*The Allied team has won the game!*
Eisenhower: awesome!
Churchill: gg noobs no re
T0J0: thats bull**** u fockin suck
*T0J0 has left the game.*
*Eisenhower has left the game.*
Stalin: next game im not going to be on ur team, u guys didnt help me for ****
Churchill: wutever, we didnt need ur help neway dumbarss
tru_m4n: l8r all
benny~tow: bye
Churchill: l8r
Stalin: fock u all
tru_m4n: shut up commie lol
*tru_m4n has left the game.*
benny~tow: lololol u commie
Churchill: ROFL
Churchill: bye commie
*Churchill has left the game.*
*benny~tow has left the game.*
Stalin: i hate u all fags
*Stalin has left the game.*
paTTon: lol no1 is left
paTTon: weeeee i got a jeep
*paTTon has been eliminated.*
paTTon: o sh1t!
*paTTon has left the game.*


...heh This?

Aww...Lada *comfort*
Want to read the funniest thing about WWII in webchat form!?

sure. I might've read it before though. Is it the one that has all the leaders chatting?

Edit: never mind, read it before.

Assbena, that still fails to explain why Japan now (As in, modern Japan.) has still not said that they did have a nuke in WWII.

As far as I know the German's tried to transfer research into making atom bombs but the U-boat that was used was sunk.

sure. I might've read it before though. Is it the one that has all the leaders chatting?

I think that would be it. *Points up.*

As far as I know the German's tried to transfer research into making atom bombs but the U-boat that was used was sunk.

That's pretty much as far as I know as well. Japan had no nuke in WWII. Until someone point me out to a place where the Japanese themselves (Preferably something from their government, and their modern one at that.) said that they did have a working nuke, I don't think I'm budging from this.

Aww...Lada *comfort*
Want to read the funniest thing about WWII in webchat form!?

I am the grand comforter. I'll let you be proxie this one time, though. But remember, one day I will ask for a favor. And on that day, you must fulfill this favor. Capishe?

And the funniest thing is that WWII fulfilled French Rules of War #2:

France only wins if America does most of the fighting.

Rule #1 is that no Frenchman ever wins in war.

And for reference Napoleon was from Corsica, and Joan of Arc was a Frenchwoman.

Assbena, that still fails to explain why Japan now (As in, modern Japan.) has still not said that they did have a nuke in WWII.

Is he claiming the Japs had nukes during WWII??? How does that work?????

Kyanges don't call me Assbena. Watch your mouth. It was a secret project and the other links aren't worth it. It was the way Japan did it.....too bad, it was buried with the scientists and time.

Cape Isles
Also my sources show that boat was captured (DUH) and it was just one of the shipments sent to Japan. They had much much much more uranium by the end of the war and made a bomb.

I am the grand comforter. I'll let you be proxie this one time, though. But remember, one day I will ask for a favor. And on that day, you must fulfill this favor. Capishe?

And the funniest thing is that WWII fulfilled French Rules of War #2:

France only wins if America does most of the fighting.

Rule #1 is that no Frenchman ever wins in war.

And for reference Napoleon was from Corsica, and Joan of Arc was a Frenchwoman.

Sorry, but I've read pretty much every French joke there is on the internet. But for you, I do have one: why do the French have trees on the sides of their boulevards? so the Germans could march in shade. ;)

Is he claiming the Japs had nukes during WWII??? How does that work?????

God found evidence.... :p

I posted 4 links to it to! Do I need more again? X_X?

God found evidence.... :p

I posted 4 links to it to! Do I need more again? X_X?

No, mainly because I can't click the links anyway. They'll crash my computer. *wince*

No idea.

And Assbena, you're not one to talk to me about watching my mouth.
Got it, ASSbena!?

It was a typo the first time, now stop trying to flame me here.
*grumbles*
Waiting on answers....

*grumbles*
Waiting on answers....

...to what?

O.k lets say for a second that Japan did build an Atom Bomb the question is what happened to it and the left over uranium?

No, mainly because I can't click the links anyway. They'll crash my computer. *wince*

Okies

Actual Test Was Success

Japan developed and successfully tested an atomic bomb three days prior to the end of the war.

She destroyed unfinished atomic bombs, secret papers and her atomic bomb plans only hours before the advance units of the Russian Army moved into Konan, Korea, site of the project.

Japanese scientists who developed the bomb are now in Moscow, prisoners of the Russians. They were tortured by their captors seeking atomic "know-how."

The Konan area is under rigid Russian control. They permit no American to visit the area. Once, even after the war, an American B-29 Superfortress en route to Konan was shot down by four Russian Yak fighters from nearby Hammung Airfield.

I learned this information from a Japanese officer, who said he was in charge of counter intelligence at the Konan project before the fall of Japan. He gave names, dates, facts and figures on the Japanese atomic project, which I submitted to United States Army Intelligence in Seoul. The War Department is withholding much of the information. To protect the man that told me this story, and at the request of the Army, he is here given a pseudonym, Capt. Tsetusuo Wakabayashi.

The story may throw light on Stalin's recent statement that America will not long have a monopoly on atomic weapons. Possibly also helps explains the stand taken by Henry A. Wallace. Perhaps also, it will help explain the heretofore unaccountable stalling of the Japanese in accepting our surrender terms as the Allies agreed to allow Hirohito to continue as puppet emperor. And perhaps it will throw light new light on the shooting down by the Russians of our B-29 on Aug. 29, 1945, in the Konan area.

When told this story, I was an agent with the Twenty-Fourth Criminal Investigation Department, operating in Korea. I was able to interview Capt. Wakabayashi, not as an investigator or as a member of the armed forces, but as a newspaperman. He was advised and understood thoroughly, that he was speaking for publication.

He was in Seoul, en route to Japan as a repatriate. The interview took place in a former Shinto temple on a mount overlooking Korea's capital city. The shrine had been converted into an hotel for transient Japanese en route to their homeland.

Since V-J Day wisps of information have drifted into the hands of U.S. Army Intelligence of the existence of a gigantic and mystery-shrouded industrial project operated during the closing months of the war in a mountain vastness near the Northern Korean coastal city of Konan. It was near here that Japan's uranium supply was said to exist.

This, the most complete account of activities at Konan to reach American ears, is believed to be the first time Japanese silence has been broken on the subject.

In a cave in a mountain near Konan, men worked against time, in final assembly of genzai bakuden, Japan's name for the atomic bomb. It was August 10, 1945 (Japanese time), only four days after an atomic bomb flashed in the sky over Hiroshima, and five days before Japan surrendered.

To the north, Russian hordes were spilling into Manchuria.

Shortly after midnight of that day a convey of Japanese trucks moved from the mouth of the cave, past watchful sentries. The trucks wound through valleys, past sleeping farm villages. It was August, and frogs in the mud of terraced rice paddies sang in a still night. In the cool predawn Japanese scientists and engineers loaded genzai bakudan aboard a ship in Konan.

Off the coast near an inlet in the Sea of Japan more frantic preparations were under way. All that day and night ancient ships, junks and fishing vessels moved into the anchorage.

Before dawn on Aug. 12 a robot launch chugged through the ships at anchor and beached itself on the inlet. Its passenger was genzai bakudan. A clock ticked.

The observers were 20 miles away. This waiting was difficult and strange to men who had worked relentlessly so long who knew their job had been completed too late.

OBSERVORS BLINDED BY FLASH

The light in the east where Japan lay grew brighter. The moment the sun peeped over the sea there was a burst of light at the anchorage blinding the observers who wore welders' glasses. The ball of fire was estimated to be 1,000 yards in diameter. A multicolored cloud of vapors boiled toward the heavens then mushroomed in the stratosphere.

The churn of water and vapor obscured the vessels directly under the burst. Ships and junks on the fringe burned fiercely at anchor. When the atmosphere cleared slightly the observers could detect several vessels had vanished.

Genzai bakudun in that moment had matched the brilliance of the rising sun in the east.

Japan had perfected and successfully tested an atomic bomb as cataclysmic as those that withered Hiroshimo and Nagasaki.

The time was short. The war was roaring to its climax. The advancing Russians would arrive at Konan before the weapon could be mounted in the ready Kamikaze planes to be thrown against any attempted landing by American troops on Japan's shores.

It was a difficult decision. But it had to be made.

The observers sped across the water, back to Konan. With the advance units of the Russian Army only hours away, the final scene of this gotterdammerung began. The scientists and engineers smashed machines, and destroyed partially completed genzai bakudans.

Before Russian columns reached Konan, dynamite sealed the secrets of the cave. But the Russians had come so quickly that the scientists could not escape.

This is the story told me by Capt. Wakabayashi.

Japan's struggle to produce and atomic weapon began in 1938, when German and Japanese scientists met to discuss a possible military use of energy locked in the atom.

No technical information was exchanged, only theories.

In 1940 the Nisina Laboratory of the Institute of Physical and Chemical Research in Tokyo had built one of the largest cyclotrons in the world. (Cyclotrons found in Tokyo by the invading Yanks were destroyed).

THOUGHT ATOMIC BOMB RISKY

The scientists continued to study atomic theory during the early days of the war, but it was not until the Unites States began to carry the war to Japan that they were able to interest the Government in a full-scale atomic project. Heretofore, the Government had considered such a venture too risky and too expensive. During the years following Pearl Harbor, Japan's militarists believed the Unites States could be defeated without the use of atomic weapons.

When task forces and invasion spearheads brought the war ever closer to the Japanese mainland, the Japanese Navy undertook the production of the atomic bomb as defense against amphibious operations. Atomic bombs were to be flown against Allied ships in Kamikaze suicide planes.

Capt. Wakabayashi estimated the area of total destruction of the bomb at one square mile.

The project was started at Nagoya, but its removal to Korea was necessitated when the B-29's began to lash industrial cities on the mainland of Japan.

"I consider the B-29 the primary weapon in the defeat of Japan" Capt. Wakabayashi declared. "The B-29 caused our project to be moved to Korea. We lost three months in the transfer. We would have had genzai bakudan three months earlier if it had not been for the B-29."

The Korean project was staffed by about 40,000 Japanese workers, of whom approximately 25,000 were trained engineers and scientists. The organization of the plant was set up so that the workers were restricted to their areas. The inner sanctum of the plant was deep in a cave. Here only 400 specialists worked.

KEPT IN DARK ON EACH OTHER'S WORK

One scientist was master director of the entire project. Six others, all eminent Japanese scientists were in charge of six phases of the bomb's production. Each of these six men were kept in ignorance of the work of the other five. (Names of these scientists are withheld by Army censorship).

The Russian's took most of the trained personnel prisoner, including the seven key men. One of the seven escaped in June, 1946, and fled to the American zone of occupation in Korea. U.S. Army Intelligence interrogated this man. Capt. Wakabayashi talked to him in Seoul. The scientist told of having been tortured by the Russians. He said all seven were tortured.

Capt. Wakabayashi said he learned from this scientist that the other six had been removed to Moscow.

"The Russians thrust burning splinters under the fingertips of these men. They poured water into their nasal passages. Our Japanese scientists will suffer death before they disclose their secrets to the Russians," he declared.

Capt. Wakabayashi said the Russians are making and extensive study of the Konan region.

When Edwin Pauley of the War Reparations Committee, inspected Northern Korea, he was allowed to see only certain areas, and was kept under rigid Russian supervision.

On Aug. 29, 1945, an American B-29 headed for Konan with a cargo of food and medical supplies, to be dropped over an Allied prisoner of war camp there. Four Russian Yak fighters from nearby Hammung Airfield circled the B-29 and signaled the pilot to land on the Hammung strip.

PILOT REFUSES; REDS FIRE

Lt. Jose H. Queen of Ashland, KY., pilot, refused to do so because the field was small, and headed back toward the Saipon base, to return "when things got straightened out with the Russians." Ten miles off the coast the Yak fighters opened fire and shot the B-29 down. None of the crew of 12 men were injured, although a Russian fighter strafed but missed Radio Operator Douglas Arthur.

The Russian later told Lt. Queen they saw the American markings but "weren't sure." because sometimes the Germans used American markings and they thought the Japs might too. This was nearly two weeks after the war ended.

Capt. Wakabayashi said the Japanese Counter Intelligence Corps at least a year before the atom bombing of Hiroshima learned there was a vast and mysterious project in the mountains of the eastern part of the United States. (Presumably the Manhattan project at Oak Ridge, Tenn). They believed, but were not sure, that atomic weapons were being produced there.

On the hand, he said, Allied Intelligence must have know of the atomic project at Konan, because of the perfect timing of the Hiroshimo bombing only six days before the long-scheduled Japanese naval test.

Perhaps here is the answer to moralists who question the decision of the United States to drop an atomic bomb.

The Japanese office, the interpreter and I sipped aromatic green tea as Capt. Wakabayashi unfolded his great and perhaps world-shaking story. His eyes flashed with pride behind the black-rimmed glassed. When the interview ended, he ushered us to the door and bowed very low.

When Japs Tested Atom Bomb—This was the war map of Korea in August, 1945, when the Russian spearhead pushed down the western coast in the drive on Konan, site of the Japanese atomic project. The atomic test was made at an unchartered inlet in the Sea of Japan. Today the 38th parallel just above Seoul divides Russian occupied territory from American. Konan remains tightly under Russian control. Russian proximity to Konan prompted the Japs decision to destroy the bomb.
http://www.reformation.org/map-of-korea.jpg
http://www.reformation.org/atlanta-constitution.html

Sorry, but I've read pretty much every French joke there is on the internet. But for you, I do have one: why do the French have trees on the sides of their boulevards? so the Germans could march in shade. ;)

Yeah, the one I used is a pretty old one.

And that joke never gets old. Then again, it never gets old making fun of the french. I'm not sure why.

Assbena,

You might want to watch it as that can be considered flaming which gets you a warning from the mods.

O.k lets say for a second that Japan did build an Atom Bomb the question is what happened to it and the left over uranium?

*shrug* got dumped into the ocean?

O.k lets say for a second that Japan did build an Atom Bomb the question is what happened to it and the left over uranium?

No one really knows I guess.....sealed in the complex or taken to Russia.

Yeah, the one I used is a pretty old one.

And that joke never gets old. Then again, it never gets old making fun of the french. I'm not sure why.

Maybe it's because they're the wimpy French? I have nothing against the French, really. They're just fun to mock, like it never gets old to mock Bush.

O.k lets say for a second that Japan did build an Atom Bomb the question is what happened to it and the left over uranium?

Well, take us for example. After dropping the bomb, we had none left. We used one(or was it two?) for testing, and the two dropped. After that, we had no bombs. We could make threats, and as far as they knew we had bombs, but any threat was completely empty. So, perhaps Japan had only one bomb at the time, and that was the one they tested. If it were close to the end of the war, they wouldn't have time to make more.

You might want to watch it as that can be considered flaming which gets you a warning from the mods.

Thanks, we've got it worked out. I've already said, it was a [convenient] typo. It's not going to happen again.

Would you like it if I deleted the post? Or are you fine with it?




(On another note, this should really get back on topic.)

If the Soviets grabbed the Japanese Atomic Bomb Makers why would they need to steal British bomb designs in the 1950's do you think that was just to keep up with the west?

Thanks, we've got it worked out. I've already said, it was a [convenient] typo. It's not going to happen again.

Would you like it if I deleted the post?

Not trying to browbeat! ;) Just an old habits from doing the mod thing awhile back.

It's up to you. Unless all references are removed; some would call it pointless. But I tend to try and delete my improper posts when warranted.

Okies


http://www.reformation.org/map-of-korea.jpg
http://www.reformation.org/atlanta-constitution.html

Here's my question then. Supposing the Japs DID have the technology for the nuke, and tested it successfully, then WHY did they surrender to the US? Sure, the Russians were invading, but they still had their main islands. The Americans weren't nearly close to Tokyo, and neither was Russia. The Japanese had a good enough military to hold out at least until they made more nukes to bomb the US and Russia.

Also, if they successfully made the nuke, then wouldn't they know the US would not have many? Purely from the economical standpoint, the US couldn't have possibly made many, since it was also a work in progress in the States. So if the Japs knew the US would run out of nukes very soon, then again, why did they surrender?

If the Soviets grabbed the Japanese Atomic Bomb Makers why would they need to steal British bomb designs in the 1950's do you think that was just to keep up with the west?

It might also be they just wanted to see where we were at.....

Maybe it's because they're the wimpy French? I have nothing against the French, really. They're just fun to mock, like it never gets old to mock Bush.

Actually if you live in America, the more you mock Bush, the less funny it gets. Because then your realize that your not really mocking him due to it all be true.

I prefer to mock the fact that America is the fattest nation in the world. Fattest state is Texas, with somewhere around 11 of the top 15 fattest cities in the country.

Now, fat people are fine. It's the fat people who complain about not being able to lose wait, while simultaneously devouring entire Big-Macs in one bite that are annoying. And those people grow in number(and mass) everyday.

edit: note-I completely forgot that this thread was about WWII for a second, and went completely off tangent

Well, take us for example. After dropping the bomb, we had none left. We used one(or was it two?) for testing, and the two dropped. After that, we had no bombs. We could make threats, and as far as they knew we had bombs, but any threat was completely empty. So, perhaps Japan had only one bomb at the time, and that was the one they tested. If it were close to the end of the war, they wouldn't have time to make more.

I wounder why the Japanese didn't use the bomb on the Advancing Russian Troops, I know it was an experimental weapon but what have they got to lose?

Also, if they successfully made the nuke, then wouldn't they know the US would not have many? Purely from the economical standpoint, the US couldn't have possibly made many, since it was also a work in progress in the States. So if the Japs knew the US would run out of nukes very soon, then again, why did they surrender?

Well for one reason, the mainland was getting bombed. Where you going to refine the uranium? It takes awhile to make it but most important, is the delivery system.

Having an atomic bomb doesn't make you all powerful. Especially if you can't drop it where your enemies would not like it.....

Not trying to browbeat! ;) Just an old habits from doing the mod thing awhile back.

It's up to you. Unless all references are removed; some would call it pointless. But I tend to try and delete my improper posts when warranted.

Heh, I'll just get rid of it. (Despite the fact that it's already quoted, lol.)

I'll cite a souce Kyanges will be more interested in:
http://www.combatsim.com/review.php?id=721

It comes from a book so I can't give too much of it, just this post on it.

n 1938 Germany and Japan met to discuss the feasibility of the production of atomic weapons and atomic energy. Theories were explored but techinal data was not exchanged at that time. Japan later requested assistance from ally Germany but it is not known how much material Japan received. This is lost to history. All we know of for sure is the one shipment of uranium oxide that was intercepted on U-234 just after VE Day.

The program was moved from Nagoya to Konan, Korea (North Korea now) in 1943 due to increasing bombing attacks. Some 40,000 worked at the facility 25,000 of whom were engineers and scientists. The facility was partly underground. About 400 worked in the underground cave area on the most sensitive aspects of the bomb. A project director coordinated with six other reknown scientists each contributing but one phase and unaware of the others.

By August 10, 1945 the Hiroshima blast had taken place so the men assembling the bomb worked quickly. If an Allied invasion was imminent Japan would need the A-bomb to make toast of the forthcoming American invasion armada. Stalin declared war on Japan on August 8th and with enough reinforcements free from European combat Russians crossed the Manchurian border.

After midnight the device was trucked to the Konan harbor. It was loaded aboard a small vessel and final preparations were undertaken for the test. Presumably an anchorage in an inlet some twenty miles away was to be the unsuspecting and unwilling live target area. It was filled with mostly wooden fishing boats and ships with sails.

The boat with the device was robot controlled and it puttered towards the anchorage before dawn on August 12th. The vessel beached itself just as the sun’s first rays of the day hit the water. The genzai bakudan triggered and the observers wearing welding goggles gasped at the immediate intense burst of light rivaling the sun.

The fire flash was about 1,000 yards in diameter and from it a mushroom cloud boiled up to the stratosphere. The vaporized water obscured the anchored vessels but most of them were burning. When the epicenter cleared some ships previously seen were completely gone without trace. The area of destruction was approximately one square mile.

But it was all too late. The Russians were hours away and the equipment at the Konan facility was smashed and the underground entrances blown up. The scientists were unable to escape and at least the top men were spirited away to Moscow for torture. The Soviets closed up the area quickly and tightly. American War Reparations personnel later were kept under constant supervision and restricted from many areas. Even a B-29 with humanitarian supplies was shot down by the itchy Russians.

On Aug. 29, 1945, an American B-29 piloted by a Lt. Jose H. Queen of Ashland, KY headed for Konan with a cargo of food and medical supplies. They were to be dropped over an Allied prisoner of war camp there. Four Yak fighters from nearby Hammung Airfield circled the B-29 and signaled the pilot to land on the too-small airstrip.

Queen did not obey and swung the big plane around to return to Saipan. Ten miles off the coast the Yaks opened up and the B-29 went down. All twelve disembarked safely but one Yak strafed and missed the radio operator. The Russians said they saw the American markings but since the Germans had used captured American planes they thought the Japanese might also. Remember this was two weeks after the official end of hostilities.

While the consensus of the Americans was that the Japanese could have been nowhere near producing an atomic bomb, that even the Germans were farther advanced, it is curious what this conclusion is based upon since no American has ever inspected the Konan facilities! It was a dangerous game to underestimate your enemy as the Allies found in December 1944 when the Ardennes Offensive (Battle of the Bulge) shocked the Americans to the realization that they could still lose the war. When the kamikazes became a horrifying reality in a divine wind over Okinawa there was no defense for them. There were no intelligence reports on either event to suggest the Allies were not taken completely by surprise.

Yoshio Nishina died in 1951. Since World War II the Konan area has been either in Soviet or North Korean hands so no look-see has ever been possible. It has been determined that heavy water was shipped out of the area in the 1950s to Russia.

At any rate, the Japanese could very well have had the capability of cobbling together a dirty bomb that did not create a chain reaction explosion but would rather dispense radioactive material into the vicinity of the target point, as the Germans could have done. Let us guess if they would have used it over Kyushu.

Though I did cite they had the machinary and power to do so....they even did put together a WORKING chain reaction for the explosion (as also seen here) though the ability to do another one in the time for the invasion was wondered, though with other sources I have cited already it appears they already did, but they were not completed yet and were still small, but one was being made for 125% larger then the American bomb.

Here's my question then. Supposing the Japs DID have the technology for the nuke, and tested it successfully, then WHY did they surrender to the US? Sure, the Russians were invading, but they still had their main islands. The Americans weren't nearly close to Tokyo, and neither was Russia. The Japanese had a good enough military to hold out at least until they made more nukes to bomb the US and Russia.

Also, if they successfully made the nuke, then wouldn't they know the US would not have many? Purely from the economical standpoint, the US couldn't have possibly made many, since it was also a work in progress in the States. So if the Japs knew the US would run out of nukes very soon, then again, why did they surrender?

Well, first they likely wouldn't have the capability to bomb any major Russian or American installations. Their navy was pretty well broken, and they didn't have any other means to transport it.

Also, even if they knew we didn't have many, they still thought we had more. A drop on Tokyo and a few other major cities would have completely destroyed Japan, and they couldn't afford even one drop on them. They would have been afraid that we would drop them again before they could get another off.

Problem here is that Russia was struggling severely for a good part of the war, and this was with only part of the German force. Had Germany been able to devote more of it's forces earlier, they could have overrun Russian forces fairly easily.
Why do people keep saying that?

When the Axis attacked Russia, there was no other significant front. Germany devoted its entire resources to destroying Russia, and failed. Indeed, when the Battle of Moscow was lost, the war was lost. It was only a matter of time from then - Stalingrad, Kursk...all were just slowing the inevitable.

And when the Allies landed on D-Day - guess where the German troops came from to fight them.

They came from the occupied territories. From Yugoslavia, from Norway, from Eastern Europe. There was no significant move of forces from the Eastern to the Western Front.

And just in case you wonder why...look at what the Soviets were doing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration) when the Allies started their landing.

The only possible scenario in which the Allies mattered is that of lend-lease and supplying the Russians. It's debatable as to how the Soviets would've held up without the tanks, planes and especially trucks that came through Murmansk and other routes. But militarily, the Western Front only mattered insofar that it prompted the German Forces to give up the West and devote all their attention to slowing the Soviets in the final weeks.

I wounder why the Japanese didn't use the bomb on the Advancing Russian Troops, I know it was an experimental weapon but what have they got to lose?

If they had it. How would they drop it? They would have to be able to defend it on its way and even then what do you do when the Soviets are pissed off?

Especially when the Americans, Aussies and Brits are pounding your ass. How will you fight off an invasion of the North Isles?

Just regarding Japanese nukes - nothing is proven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atomic_program#Disputed_reports_about_the_nuclear_program_in_Konan_in_1945
Make up your own mind.

Here's my question then. Supposing the Japs DID have the technology for the nuke, and tested it successfully, then WHY did they surrender to the US? Sure, the Russians were invading, but they still had their main islands. The Americans weren't nearly close to Tokyo, and neither was Russia. The Japanese had a good enough military to hold out at least until they made more nukes to bomb the US and Russia.

Also, if they successfully made the nuke, then wouldn't they know the US would not have many? Purely from the economical standpoint, the US couldn't have possibly made many, since it was also a work in progress in the States. So if the Japs knew the US would run out of nukes very soon, then again, why did they surrender?

Hirohito got away from the militarists for a moment to make a public announcement, he actually wanted the war to end, but he would not make public appearances in the war. When Hirohito made the statement Japan surrendered and Tojo (who was the real leader, but the Emperor is seen as a god in Japan) could no longer do anything. When Hirohito spoke his word was law to the people.

Also they didn't have anymore bombs ready at the time and Russia sweeped in so fast they couldn't do anything except destroy and seal the cave in which most of the evidence was. Though Japan was ready to use it on us for the invasion!

I wounder why the Japanese didn't use the bomb on the Advancing Russian Troops, I know it was an experimental weapon but what have they got to lose?

But if it didn't work on the drop, the Russians would have captured it. Even if it was a "dud", so to speak, they still would have gained a wealth of information to use against the Japanese. This alone would make the Japanese extremely cautious, and make sure it would work first time, every time.

I'll cite a souce Kyanges will be more interested in:
http://www.combatsim.com/review.php?id=721

It comes from a book so I can't give too much of it, just this post on it.



Though I did cite they had the machinary and power to do so....they even did put together a WORKING chain reaction for the explosion (as also seen here) though the ability to do another one in the time for the invasion was wondered, though with other sources I have cited already it appears they already did, but they were not completed yet and were still small, but one was being made for 125% larger then the American bomb.

You link me to a game site and say I'll be more interested in it? Wow, thanks...

At any rate, Japan still would have gone down, hard. You have to remember, it wouldn't just have been the west invading either.


Now can we all please get back on topic here?

If they had it. How would they drop it? They would have to be able to defend it on its way and even then what do you do when the Soviets are pissed off?


Who's to say they could of dropped it most of these Japanese Troops thought that dying for there Emporor was a great honour and would be granted a place in heaven so why not have a hundred or so Japanese guard a bunker and then when the time is right set it off.

And as for pissing off Russians, Scorched Earth! burn it rather than let them take it.

Actually if you live in America, the more you mock Bush, the less funny it gets. Because then your realize that your not really mocking him due to it all be true.

I prefer to mock the fact that America is the fattest nation in the world. Fattest state is Texas, with somewhere around 11 of the top 15 fattest cities in the country.

Now, fat people are fine. It's the fat people who complain about not being able to lose wait, while simultaneously devouring entire Big-Macs in one bite that are annoying. And those people grow in number(and mass) everyday.

edit: note-I completely forgot that this thread was about WWII for a second, and went completely off tangent

tangents are fine. Blame WWII for the rise of consumerism?

Actually, being Canadian, mocking Bush is SOOOOOOOOOOOO much fun. But when he tries to screw us over with softwood lumber and border control, then people just get mad.

And yeah...Houston's the fattest city in the world. Have you ever walked by a Macdonalds, and realize the only people who eat there are fat people and victims of the media and commercials? and children. Forgot the gullible children.

Just regarding Japanese nukes - nothing is proven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atomic_program#Disputed_reports_about_the_nuclear_program_in_Konan_in_1945
Make up your own mind.

Sad thing is wiki doesn't even give the NAME of the officer, who was one of the scientists who was captured by the russians and escaped. Nor does it say about the fate or end of the program or anything about the Russian sweep to Konan as fast as possible (instead of picking a real military target).

I've cited plenty already that backs up this information with more information then this 'at best' speculation of the matter.

Very little is known about the size of the atomic program in Konan though it is conventionally thought to have been small in comparison with the successful U.S. effort
I have numbers and structure set up.

The officer then claimed that the Russian Army, which captured Konan in November 1945 after some of the last fighting in the war, dismantled the Japanese project and shipped it and some of its scientists taken prisoner back to the Soviet Union.
Have name and number of scientists moved back and how far Soviets went to get information (but they failed largely)

The book, prefaced by Derek deSolla Price, Avalon professor of the history of science at Yale University, who endorsed it, was both panned and praised. Price wrote, “No longer can we maintain that a Japanese bomb just couldn’t have happened. Obviously it ‘nearly’ did. The only questions are how near and what does it do to our judgment on the one case we have of atomic warfare.” James L. Stokesbury, author of A Short History of World War II, wrote: “I had no idea the Japanese were working as seriously on an atomic bomb...this has to modify our perception of one of the crucial issues of the war.”

Supporting it.

A review by a Department of Energy employee in the journal Military Affairs degraded it:

Journalist Wilcox' book describes the Japanese wartime atomic energy projects. This is a laudable, in that it illuminates a little-known episode; nevertheless, the work is marred by Wilcox' seeming eagerness to show that Japan created an atomic bomb. Tales of Japanese atomic explosions, one a fictional attack on Los Angeles, the other an unsubstantiated account of a post-Hiroshima test, begin the book. (Wilcox accepts the test story because the author [Snell], "was a distinguished journalist"). The tales, combined with Wilcox' failure to discuss the difficulty of translating scientific theory into a workable bomb, obscure the actual story of the Japanese effort: uncoordinated laboratory-scale projects which took paths least likely to produce a bomb. In the historical journal Isis, two historians of science said only of Wilcox's work that his thesis stood "on the flimsiest and most unconvincing of grounds," and surmised that the hidden agenda of such conspiracy theories was "to furnish a new exculpation for America's dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Kinda funny cause we know otherwise now. :D

You link me to a game site and say I'll be more interested in it? Wow, thanks...

At any rate, Japan still would have gone down, hard. You have to remember, it wouldn't just have been the west invading either.


Now can we all please get back on topic here?

Duh I know that. XD
Though did you CHECK the site and read about the BOOK!? Which goes to support other information cited?

tangents are fine. Blame WWII for the rise of consumerism?

Actually, being Canadian, mocking Bush is SOOOOOOOOOOOO much fun. But when he tries to screw us over with softwood lumber and border control, then people just get mad.

And yeah...Houston's the fattest city in the world. Have you ever walked by a Macdonalds, and realize the only people who eat there are fat people and victims of the media and commercials? and children. Forgot the gullible children.

Its a happy dancing clown that likes to have fun...course kids like it.

Though let's get back on track lmao!

Sad thing is wiki doesn't even give the NAME of the officer...
Then add it already!

At any rate...why do you feel the need to make the Japanese bigger than they really were?

Who's to say they could of dropped it most of these Japanese Troops thought that dying for there Emporor was a great honour and would be granted a place in heaven so why not have a hundred or so Japanese guard a bunker and then when the time is right set it off.

And as for pissing off Russians Scorched Earth! burn it rather than let them take it.

Ground level blast wouldn't have done much.

Scorched Earth is for when you don't want to leave your enemy anything useful and you have a place to retreat.

Duh I know that. XD
Though did you CHECK the site and read about the BOOK!? Which goes to support other information cited?

Lol, sorry, wasn't sure, because of that "JAPAN WOULD HAVE KICKED AMERICA'S *** IN THE INVASION RAAAWWWRRRRR!!!!111!!11111!!" attitude you had going on last month.

And yes, I read the site, and am still digesting the info. Plus, don't have the book.

On the other hand, have YOU read some of the historical books I have? (Lol, please take this for the joke that it is.)



Back on topic! Yeah!

Its a happy dancing clown that likes to have fun...course kids like it.

Though let's get back on track lmao!

No. And a LOT of kids are creeped out by clowns. The Macdonald one is especially creepy. *shudders*

At any rate...why do you feel the need to make the Japanese bigger than they really were?

I was wondering that myself especially considering what the Soviets did to them in the field.....

Then add it already!

At any rate...why do you feel the need to make the Japanese bigger than they really were?

Capt. Wakabayashi.....I already cited this ENTIRE post just for Lada not even a page back for me.

Lol, sorry, wasn't sure, because of that "JAPAN WOULD HAVE KICKED AMERICA'S *** IN THE INVASION RAAAWWWRRRRR!!!!111!!11111!!" attitude you had going on last month.

And yes, I read the site, and am still digesting the info. Plus, don't have the book.

On the other hand, have YOU read some of the historical books I have? (Lol, please take this for the joke that it is.)



Back on topic! Yeah!

Actually....yes....unless we used nukes and Japan used nukes...even then russians....they would have gone for surrender but non-conditional no thanks. (Remember we let the keep Hirohito even though it was unconditional, it was like a promise to the people, and it was accepted)

I was wondering that myself especially considering what the Soviets did to them in the field.....

Well...he IS a hard core Anime fan...

That usually doesn't blur people's opinions on matter such as these, but...yeah... Even I find myself making China sound better than it really is on occasion just because I am Chinese.

Lol, sorry, wasn't sure, because of that "JAPAN WOULD HAVE KICKED AMERICA'S *** IN THE INVASION RAAAWWWRRRRR!!!!111!!11111!!" attitude you had going on last month.

And yes, I read the site, and am still digesting the info. Plus, don't have the book.

On the other hand, have YOU read some of the historical books I have? (Lol, please take this for the joke that it is.)



Back on topic! Yeah!

well, according to someone I know (not my personal opinion), without the nukes, the Japanese would've won in the Pacific Theatre. Apparently they had a bunch of new weapons made at the end of the war, and along with soldiers who would rather die than surrender, you've got a pretty lethal combination. If the nukes haven't been dropped, most of Asia would likely be under a sadistic military dictatorship right now.

Actually....yes....unless we used nukes and Japan used nukes...even then russians....they would have gone for surrender but non-conditional no thanks. (Remember we let the keep Hirohito even though it was unconditional, it was like a promise to the people, and it was accepted)

No.

No. And a LOT of kids are creeped out by clowns. The Macdonald one is especially creepy. *shudders*

Look at the new Burger King.

http://www.slate.com/id/2107697

Well...he IS a hard core Anime fan...

That usually doesn't blur people's opinions on matter such as these, but...yeah... Even I find myself making China sound better than it really is on occasion just because I am Chinese.

hardcore anime fan =/= love the japanese. I would know. Maybe it equals loving the Japanese culture, but definitely not the government.

well, according to someone I know (not my personal opinion), without the nukes, the Japanese would've won in the Pacific Theatre. Apparently they had a bunch of new weapons made at the end of the war, and along with soldiers who would rather die than surrender, you've got a pretty lethal combination. If the nukes haven't been dropped, most of Asia would likely be under a sadistic military dictatorship right now.

Too little, too late imo.

The Allies had plenty of toys as well. To say that on side would have won simply because of a few conventional secret weapons is kind of, well, one sided.

Capt. Wakabayashi.....I already cited this ENTIRE post just for Lada not even a page back for me.

that sentence made no sense whatsoever.

that sentence made no sense whatsoever.

Say it out loud. And real slow like.

(Lol, joking Asbena.)

well, according to someone I know (not my personal opinion), without the nukes, the Japanese would've won in the Pacific Theatre. Apparently they had a bunch of new weapons made at the end of the war, and along with soldiers who would rather die than surrender, you've got a pretty lethal combination. If the nukes haven't been dropped, most of Asia would likely be under a sadistic military dictatorship right now.

*hugs* Have a cookie! *gives Lada a cookie*
Correct that is Ketsu-go though it depends on a few things. Though Japan would never be able to take over the entire pacific with the USA off its shores, Japan would wreck the fleet, but it would be unable to expand again.

An american invasion would have cost the lives of more then a million American men. Something the USA would not do anyways.

that sentence made no sense whatsoever.

He asked....
But fine. 'I cited it about a page back for Lada.'

The Allies had a number of other secret weapons in development. One that would have been deployed if it wasn't for the Bomb was the "bat bomb" - attaching tiny incendiaries to bats and dropping them on Japanese cities. Sounds crazy, but they performed brilliantly in tests. Source: The History Channel.

*hugs* Have a cookie! *gives Lada a cookie*
Correct that is Ketsu-go though it depends on a few things. Though Japan would never be able to take over the entire pacific with the USA off its shores, Japan would wreck the fleet, but it would be unable to expand again.

An american invasion would have cost the lives of more then a million American men. Something the USA would not do anyways.

According to some research I did, the casualties would have numbered above a million, but that was an over inflated figure.

Some stupid report I did two years back...

The Allies had a number of other secret weapons in development. One that would have been deployed if it wasn't for the Bomb was the "bat bomb" - attaching tiny incendiaries to bats and dropping them on Japanese cities. Sounds crazy, but they performed brilliantly in tests. Source: The History Channel.

YAY!

*hugs* Have a cookie! *gives Lada a cookie*
Correct that is Ketsu-go though it depends on a few things. Though Japan would never be able to take over the entire pacific with the USA off its shores, Japan would wreck the fleet, but it would be unable to expand again.

An american invasion would have cost the lives of more then a million American men. Something the USA would not do anyways.

YAY! Cookie! *dances* (I'll stop hijacking your thread now.)

The Allies had a number of other secret weapons in development. One that would have been deployed if it wasn't for the Bomb was the "bat bomb" - attaching tiny incendiaries to bats and dropping them on Japanese cities. Sounds crazy, but they performed brilliantly in tests. Source: The History Channel.

Sounds like ND....though thing is fire-bombing worked better anyways. :P

An american invasion would have cost the lives of more then a million American men. Something the USA would not do anyways.

So what the hell went wrong with this thing in the Middle East? *shakes fist at Bush*

So what the hell went wrong with this thing in the Middle East? *shakes fist at Bush*

WWII president = FDR (competent)
Now president = Georgie (do I really need to add anything?)

see the difference? but the American casualty at the Middle East hasn't reached a million yet, even though the cost is already more than $270,000,000,000.

YAY! Cookie! *dances* (I'll stop hijacking your thread now.)

Good girl! ^-^ *pets teasingly*

--------------------------------
By my own estimates it would have been 2 million+ if they wanted to take Tokyo. Though if they wanted total elimination of the enemy....countless lives would be lost. Everyone was mobilized, its was crazy with all the suicidal weapons they had and the fact that should America invade (rather when it did) how badly America would have gotten its ass kicked by non-stop kamikaze runs for 10 days straight and 3000 fighters dogfighting and bombing the ships as submarines, pikemen, kamikaze planes, tanks, artillery and very very cunning and elaborate strong defenses were built to hold off even the most intense shelling from America and put the incoming soldiers right into the lines of the machine guns.

Think D-Day with 650,000 Germans on a super-defended set of beaches while all hell lets loose around you against the same amount of Americans. Oh ya... JETS TO. It would have been hell on Earth.

I think without US help, Britain alone couldn't bomb the crap out of German factories, the German war machine would have more men and resources to pour into the Eastern front. Also the Japanese might have advanced on resource-rich Siberia and the Russians would be pressed on two fronts. If that happened, I think an axis victory would be guaranteed.

i'd have to agree with your assessment,even lend lease to the british would only help so much,alot of it going to the bottom of the north atlantic.

i believe we also gave alot of aid to the russians,but until the japanese hit pearl,they had(the u.s. and allies)seemed more concerned with the japanese opening a second front with russia,and i think hitler was not to pleased with the pearl harbor attack.for that reason.

Good girl! ^-^ *pets teasingly*

--------------------------------
By my own estimates it would have been 2 million+ if they wanted to take Tokyo. Though if they wanted total elimination of the enemy....countless lives would be lost. Everyone was mobilized, its was crazy with all the suicidal weapons they had and the fact that should America invade (rather when it did) how badly America would have gotten its ass kicked by non-stop kamikaze runs for 10 days straight and 3000 fighters dogfighting and bombing the ships as submarines, pikemen, kamikaze planes, tanks, artillery and very very cunning and elaborate strong defenses were built to hold off even the most intense shelling from America and put the incoming soldiers right into the lines of the machine guns.

Think D-Day with 650,000 Germans on a super-defended set of beaches while all hell lets loose around you against the same amount of Americans. Oh ya... JETS TO. It would have been hell on Earth.


There's that JET plane thing again.

Look, it has been recorded that in October 1944, a Mustang pilot (Lieutenant Urban L. Drew.) used his prop plane to shoot down two Me-262 jets.

I make no claims as to skill of pilots planned for the invasion, but I can almost guarantee you they were better than what the Japanese had available to them at the time. (Nor do I say that the Naval fighters were on par with the Mustang.)

Circumstances may have worked in the Mustang's favor, or whatever, but my point is, jets at the time were hardly the end all that they might seem to be.

I don't know what the outcome of a US invasion of Japan would have been, but I can bet you that the blood would be visible from space.

i'd have to agree with your assessment,even lend lease to the british would only help so much,alot of it going to the bottom of the north atlantic.

i believe we also gave alot of aid to the russians,but until the japanese hit pearl,they had(the u.s. and allies)seemed more concerned with the japanese opening a second front with russia,and i think hitler was not to pleased with the pearl harbor attack.for that reason.

Of course not, he was a little upset I bet over that. It forced America into the war when he wasn't ready for them!

Without the US, the USSR would have defeated the Nazis and in doing so conquered mainland Europe, bringing the war to an end in mid-1946. The Japanese army in Manchuria would have then lasted a few months rather than two weeks. Its navy, undefeated in the absence of US involvement, would have been relegated to maintaining Japanese influence over former European SE Asian colonies such as Singapore.

Balance of power would then be US vs USSR Cold War, Europe being a very large and impoverished Warsaw Pact forced to wait 20-30 years for reconstruction, and Japan in a cold, possibly later hot war with the US over influence in the Pacific.

very interesting opinion....also quite possible,but i think you are under estimating the japanese somewhat.

they fought us pretty damn hard...island to island...to the death in most instances.

it would have created quite the logistical problem for the russians,fighting on 2 fronts.

There's that JET plane thing again.

Look, it has been recorded that in October 1944, a Mustang pilot (Lieutenant Urban L. Drew.) used his prop plane to shoot down two Me-262 jets.

I make no claims as to skill of pilots planned for the invasion, but I can almost guarantee you they were better than what the Japanese had available to them at the time. (Nor do I say that the Naval fighters were on par with the Mustang.)

Circumstances may have worked in the Mustang's favor, or whatever, but my point is, jets at the time were hardly the end all that they might seem to be.

So? When they are suicidal kamikaze fighters....I don't think you need to know how to handle them that well....as Jet fighters....ya kinda bad until you get some air-to-air missiles. :P

Good girl! ^-^ *pets teasingly*

--------------------------------
By my own estimates it would have been 2 million+ if they wanted to take Tokyo. Though if they wanted total elimination of the enemy....countless lives would be lost. Everyone was mobilized, its was crazy with all the suicidal weapons they had and the fact that should America invade (rather when it did) how badly America would have gotten its ass kicked by non-stop kamikaze runs for 10 days straight and 3000 fighters dogfighting and bombing the ships as submarines, pikemen, kamikaze planes, tanks, artillery and very very cunning and elaborate strong defenses were built to hold off even the most intense shelling from America and put the incoming soldiers right into the lines of the machine guns.

Think D-Day with 650,000 Germans on a super-defended set of beaches while all hell lets loose around you against the same amount of Americans. Oh ya... JETS TO. It would have been hell on Earth.

The Americans knew it would be a lot higher than the initial 1 million estimate too, that's why they went with the nuke option. Also, taking the islands one by one was just WAY to slow, especially with the Russians up north flying down Korean and Manchuria at lightning speed.

(so does that mean I get another cookie?)

YEP! *give her another cookie*
Now you know about the balloon attacks? :)

YEP! *give her another cookie*
Now you know about the balloon attacks? :)

huh? what balloon attackes? :confused:

So? When they are suicidal kamikaze fighters....I don't think you need to know how to handle them that well....as Jet fighters....ya kinda bad until you get some air-to-air missiles. :P

Lol, you mean that Balloon thing the Japanese tried by tying bombs to balloons and sending them off in the Jet stream? Seen it. Practically useless.

AA missiles at the time were not independently guided. I'd like to see how you're going to try and convince me that they were effective at all against nimble fighters.

Trying to yank and bank your own fighter, avoid enemy fighters/fire, and then try to pilot a small rocket towards another fighter plane back then with no experience using them in real combat? Yeah, my position on the jets remains.

Lol, you mean that Balloon thing the Japanese tried by tying bombs to balloons and sending them off in the Jet stream? Seen it. Practically useless.

AA missiles at the time were not independently guided. I'd like to see how you're going to try and convince me that they were effective at all against nimble fighters.

Trying to yank and bank your own fighter, avoid enemy fighters/fire, and then try to pilot a small rocket towards another fighter plane back then with no experience using them in real combat? Yeah, my position on the jets remains.

I never said it....I was supporting you. My your arguementative tonight. :eek:

Balloon....yep lol!

I never said it....I was supporting you. My your arguementative tonight. :eek:

Balloon....yep lol!

Blame it on you.

And that fact that you were supporting me, I take with a grain of salt.

Assuming that you're telling the truth, yay.

So? When they are suicidal kamikaze fighters....I don't think you need to know how to handle them that well....as Jet fighters....ya kinda bad until you get some air-to-air missiles. :P

Kamikazes...easy.
Fighters....I think I made my point already.

Just listen sometimes. :o

Just regarding Japanese nukes - nothing is proven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atomic_program#Disputed_reports_about_the_nuclear_program_in_Konan_in_1945
Make up your own mind.

This says it all about the axis bomb effort.

http://www.pbs.org/opb/citizenk/secrets/heisenberg.html

Even had the japanese taken everything the germans had accomplished, there was nothing substantial to improve upon.

I don't take the assertation that the japanese produced a working bomb seriously.

Kamikazes...easy.
Fighters....I think I made my point already.

Just listen sometimes. :o

I still don't see how that was supporting me. Doesn't matter now.

This says it all about the axis bomb effort.

http://www.pbs.org/opb/citizenk/secrets/heisenberg.html

Even had the japanese taken everything the germans had accomplished, there was nothing substantial to improve upon.

I don't take the assertation that the japanese produced a working bomb seriously.

I have sources and lots of evidence, machines, pictures and other information. Why do you keep bringing this up? :o

tangents are fine. Blame WWII for the rise of consumerism?

Actually, being Canadian, mocking Bush is SOOOOOOOOOOOO much fun. But when he tries to screw us over with softwood lumber and border control, then people just get mad.

And yeah...Houston's the fattest city in the world. Have you ever walked by a Macdonalds, and realize the only people who eat there are fat people and victims of the media and commercials? and children. Forgot the gullible children.

Yeah, it's all fun and games until you get screwed. Satire is only funny if it is only somewhat true

And fat people are some really lazy bastards as well. Have you ever noticed who takes the elevator? It's mostly obese people. One would figure that they would welcome the extra exercise, but they don't. I guess it's because after WWII, people didn't have to be in shape with the prospect of mass war;) .

I have sources and lots of evidence, machines, pictures and other information. Why do you keep bringing this up? :o

because those sources aren't necessarily trustworthy. Maybe they're all in a Jewsih conspiracy trying to take over the world. :eek: