NationStates Jolt Archive

How would World War 2 have turned out if airplanes had NEVER been heard invented?

Heres what would have happend differently...

During the war between britin and germany, the british planes prevented an assualt that would have destroyed the british and they would not be able to stop the germans in africa.:mp5:

The Japenese would not have been able to destroy pearl harbour preventing america from entering WW2.

If we did, we would have to invade EVERY island in the pacific which would have completly destroyed the U.S military:sniper:. The atomic bombs would not have been detonating which led toward Japans defeat.

The russians would be unable to call in support, stopping the russians from attacking germany and taking over berlin, which led to germany's defeat


So was it because of planes that the allies won?
And WOULD the allies have won without them?

Without airplanes, there might have been greater use of dirigibles in warfare. The Battle of Britain would have been completely different. Naval warfare would have taken on a greater significance.

I think Germany would have had a harder time taking over Poland, France, Netherlands, Norway, etc without them. Planes were integral to the art of blitzkrieg. Without the Luftwaffe softening up Poland and Frances defenses, I think they would have put up more of a fight than they did.

Damn...its hard to think about all the effects of no planes...

You'd think someone would have thought of them by then.

Without the Luftwaffe the Germans wouldnt have made near as many mistakes, Herman Goering was a fucktard...

Without planes, Erwin Rommel would have had alot more influence, because the Wehrmacht would be the primary fighting force...

the Battle of Britian, Stalingrad, and several others would most likely be a German Victory...

But, i think, in the end, superior manpower of the Soviet Union, and later, America(FDR was dying to go to war, he simply used Pearl Harbor as an excuse, if that hadnt happened, something else would have) would overwhelm German forces...

Japan, probably would turn out better, without Pearl Harbor the US would have no reason to fight them, and we werent really interested in Japan at all until Pearl Harbor, so i dont see us ever fighting them without it...Japan would have come out with control over all Asian Countries, but, Insurgents probably would have continued Fighting Inevitably...Though the "Republic of Greater East Asia" from Battle Royale, definitely is a tantalizing possibility...

You'd think someone would have thought of them by then.

Indeed. I know they are almost completely unrelated, but nuclear bombs before airplanes? Very unlikely.

that would be kinda wierd thinking about no planes in the 2000s.

And market garden wouldnt have happend and we would have lost the pacific war

If we did, we would have to invade EVERY island in the pacific which would have completly destroyed the U.S military:sniper:. The atomic bombs would not have been detonating which led toward Japans defeat.


The only use of those islands was as airstrips. And the atom bomb could've been built either way, if all you're subtracting is aircraft.

I think Germany would have had a harder time taking over Poland, France, Netherlands, Norway, etc without them. Planes were integral to the art of blitzkrieg. Without the Luftwaffe softening up Poland and Frances defenses, I think they would have put up more of a fight than they did.

Damn...its hard to think about all the effects of no planes...

Meh, Poland had no defence compared to the Wehrmacht, neither did the Netherlands, and France had all their defenses in the wrong spot...and the leaders were more than happy to betray their countrymen in return for a little peace of land...France was screwed from the get go...

Without planes Germany wouldn't have started the war.

Without planes Germany wouldn't have started the war.

Provided they still lost WW1 and the same Provisions were put in place...

It was inevitable that Germany was going to fight WWII...

And what about if we go back to how the war REALLY happend and germany actually built the jet fighter? wouldnt they have won?

And what about if we go back to how the war REALLY happend and germany actually built the jet fighter? wouldnt they have won?

No, because they did build it, they just didnt have the numbers necessary for it to make a difference, sheer Numbers of Planes meant that the Jet wasnt an effective counter...

It was inevitable that Germany was going to fight WWII...
Sure, but without planes the Wehrmacht would not have been able to win this war. The reason Germany could defeat pretty much all of Europe in 1939 and 1940 was that their planes functioned as mobile artillery, calling down accurate and fast strikes on defensive positions without German troops having to drag slow artillery units behind them.

Hence whatever the conflict would have been, it wouldn't have taken place in a way that we could predict.

And what about if we go back to how the war REALLY happend and germany actually built the jet fighter? wouldnt they have won?
Certainly not. The thing wouldn't have been able to turn around the war in Russia, nor would it have been able to stop Allied bombing runs. The only, and pretty far-fetched, way Germany could have won would be a collapse of the USSR if German troops took Moscow in winter 1941/42. That's really not all that likely, so there we go.

Without planes Germany wouldn't have started the war.

Eh. Germans start wars - it's in their nature, unless they're convinced the costs are too dear, which is what WWII did. :p

Sure, but without planes the Wehrmacht would not have been able to win this war. The reason Germany could defeat pretty much all of Europe in 1939 and 1940 was that their planes functioned as mobile artillery, calling down accurate and fast strikes on defensive positions without German troops having to drag slow artillery units behind them.



I Disagree, Tanks do the job just fine, and can overrun a position, especially sparsely defended Netherlands, Belgium, and Poland...and if you can overrun those, well, There's nothing standing in your way in France, since the Maginot line didnt go that far, and after Poland its straight to Russia...

and without Goering, I think Rommel would have destroyed most of those...

Eh. Germans start wars - it's in their nature, unless they're convinced the costs are too dear, which is what WWII did. :p
Well...I believe it was the UK who declared war on Germany both times. ;)

Seriously though - in 1871 France declared war on Prussia (playing right into Bismarck's hands, but that's another matter). In 1914 it was Austria-Hungary and the Russians who have to carry the main blame - Germany made the mistake of giving the Austrians free reign to decide what was done about Serbia. And 1939...well you'd have to say that was Hitler, rather than Germany.

Germany was a country in which military tradition was valued very highly, and in which the military held great influence in the positions of power, but prior to 1933 I wouldn't call it a any more warlike than its neighbours.

Honestly, youd think germany would have learned its lesson after WW1

I Disagree, Tanks do the job just fine, and can overrun a position...
Not the tanks available to the German military at that time. Anti-tank guns and particularly French tanks were vastly more powerful.

...especially sparsely defended Netherlands, Belgium, and Poland...and if you can overrun those...
The Netherlands and Belgium were defeated primarily because the Germans were moving too quickly and captured the big channels, which were meant to be the defensive line, before the defenses were actually up. Guess how they did it...here's a hint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben-Emael).

there's nothing standing in your way in France, since the Maginot line didnt go that far, and after Poland its straight to Russia...
The French tank force was superior to the German one. The reason France fell was that the German attack came in an area where it wasn't expected. However, there were still significant defenses in that area, and it was the Luftwaffe which cleared them out of the way so that Rommel, Guderian et al could get through.

That's what I was saying: the speed advantage came because the quick German units didn't have to carry a lot of artillery. And the reason for that was that the Luftwaffe had taken its place. Blitzkrieg in those early years was all about close-air support, not about tank warfare. Most German tanks didn't have a gun capable of attacking armoured targets. The Panzer I didn't have a gun at all. The reason they were successful was because of their speed and the ability to appear in places were they weren't wanted, and they could only do that because their heavy ordinance was delivered by air.

and without Goering, I think Rommel would have destroyed most of those...
Russia is a different animal because by then the Wehrmacht had more and better tanks. Nonetheless, the Russians still had more and better ones, and again it was the Stukas who did a lot of the damage. They have to, considering the size of the place.

Honestly, youd think germany would have learned its lesson after WW1

Well, I dont think they could have avoided going to war, with all the shit that was dumped on them afterwards...

Unfortunately the concept of Peace Conference wasnt around before WWII and they simply wanted to hurt Germany as much as possible, which Facilitated the rise of Hitler...

Poverty Stricken Countries are driven to Extremes...and when that Country is capable of a real Military Expedition, and has the level of Education and Development as the Western World, the results are disastrous..

Honestly, youd think germany would have learned its lesson after WW1
They had: you can't win against everyone at once. But you have a damn good chance if you can take one after another.

Hitler didn't expect the Entente to do anything when he invaded Poland. They let him have Czechoslovakia and he figured they (and it was them who thought they had learned a lesson) would chicken out indefinitely until Germany was properly ready to take them on. Even with an Allied response it went quite well for the first two or three years.

And this is aside from another reason, which is known as the Dolchstoßlegende. It was popular after the veterans returned from WWI and found the place full of socialists and social democrats who were very anti-war and anti-military. Basically they, strongly encouraged by their generals, then came to the conclusion that the reason Germany lost was because of a stab in the back from the home front. You know when Americans say they lost Vietnam because of liberals at home - it's precisely the same thing. The Nazis then turned the liberals into democratic politicians and, of course, the Jews.

Russia is a different animal because by then the Wehrmacht had more and better tanks. Nonetheless, the Russians still had more and better ones, and again it was the Stukas who did a lot of the damage. They have to, considering the size of the place.

Well, ive already stated, i think Russia and the United States and their superior manpower and production capabilities would eventually take them down...

But, as far as France goes, superior weapons do no good if they arent in a position to bring them to bear, they stupidly placed them in the Maginot line, and if the Germans brought the same numbers of tanks and troops, then what little other defenses that France had would have been overwhelmed...besides Vichy France would still have been more than willing to Capitulate...

Germany was a country in which military tradition was valued very highly, and in which the military held great influence in the positions of power, but prior to 1933 I wouldn't call it a any more warlike than its neighbours.

Possibly, but arguing that it was was always a good way to kill 15 minutes in German class. :p That and the Germans having voted for Hitler were always great. :)

Well, I dont think they could have avoided going to war, with all the shit that was dumped on them afterwards...
By 1939 there was no part of the Treaty of Versailles still in force. The reperations had been cancelled in the aftermath of the great depression as part of the German effort to get inflation back under control, and appeasement as a policy meant that Germany was openly demonstrating its tanks and planes despite officially not being allowed to have them.

Hitler certainly didn't have to go to war, and the Weimar Republic would never have done it. It was Hitler's ideology and the willingness of too many people to go along with it that started WWII, not Versailles.

By 1939 there was no part of the Treaty of Versailles still in force. The reperations had been cancelled in the aftermath of the great depression as part of the German effort to get inflation back under control, and appeasement as a policy meant that Germany was openly demonstrating its tanks and planes despite officially not being allowed to have them.

Hitler certainly didn't have to go to war, and the Weimar Republic would never have done it. It was Hitler's ideology and the willingness of too many people to go along with it that started WWII, not Versailles.

That was simply because Hitler had started preparing to go to war...

Germany never fully paid off its debt, and simply diverted the funds used for paying it, into building up its military...

not to mention the Splitting of Germany, and the limiting of its military on top of the Debt that had to be paid...

But the fact that Hitler rose to power at all meant that the Treaty of Versailles had done its damage, and war was inevitable...

But, as far as France goes, superior weapons do no good if they arent in a position to bring them to bear, they stupidly placed them in the Maginot line...
Not their tanks. Basically there was a reason the Germans went through the very southern tip of Belgium - the Allies were expecting an attack to the north of that through the Belgian and northern French plains, and that's where they had their forces. And those were quite strong enough to take on the Wehrmacht head-on.

It was when the Germans broke through to the south and then raced towards the channel coast, threatening to cut off the BEP and French army, that the panic started to set in.

and if the Germans brought the same numbers of tanks and troops, then what little other defenses that France had would have been overwhelmed...besides Vichy France would still have been more than willing to Capitulate...
Vichy France didn't exist until after the capitulation. The government was struggling long and hard with itself what to do about a situation in which the military situation was beyond hopeless and there was no prospect of UK (let alone American) intervention. The French thought Britain would make peace as well, having (in their eyes) fled and left them to themselves, and that would be the end of the war. Going into exile was, under those assumptions, a silly idea. De Gaulle only did it because he was so immensely stubborn, way beyond anything Churchill was capable of.

It's sad that I keep having to explain this to people, but France didn't fold. They fought a hard campaign, and it was the surprise factor the Germans had on their side more than anything else that doomed them. Yes, many of their generals were too much of the WWI mindset (so were many German ones, it was just that the Nazis had political problems with them and thus replaced them with young unconventional newcomers). Yes, the Maginot line wasn't the greatest idea ever. But after your army is destroyed, the enemy is sitting in your capital and controls more than half your country, with your allies disappearing across the seas and your people starving because you're running out of food to feed all the refugees with...I don't think surrender is that bad an option. Germany surrendered way before that in WWI but no one blames them.

Germany gets blockaded by the Royal Navy, while a stalemate occurs in France.

Initial German gains against Russia are quickly nullified.

Japan lacks the air-support to take the East Indies or the Phillipines. Singapore never falls, enabling ABCD command to retain control of the region.

War probably ends in the Allies favor by mid 1944 after several large naval battles (UK/Germany, US/Japan) and relatively few ground-based casualties.

I don't think surrender is that bad an option. Germany surrendered way before that in WWI but no one blames them.

Yep...that would be why France didnt fight as well as Britain in WWII...and couldnt win without theirs, and the US's help in WWI...

Napoleon may have been able to fight off Hitler...but WWII-era France just could not stop Germany...for the aforementioned reasons...

With or Without Planes...

But, i can see we are not going to agree...and I needs sleep, its 12:32 AM here...and i have College tomorrow...

Yep...that would be why France didnt fight as well as Britain in WWII...and couldnt win without theirs, and the US's help in WWI...
Britain had a bit of water between them and the Wehrmacht. That's the only reason they didn't get their arse kicked. The British army was pitifully weak at the start of WWII, and even moreso after Dunkirk.

In WWI the US help in the form of actual troops doing actual fighting was quite minimal. It was the promise of troops from the US and its industrial power that made a difference. It's hard to say whether the US staying neutral would have prompted the German offensive of early 1918 to be postponed, but either way chances are the outcome wouldn't have changed. Germany was running out of food and morale, mainly because of the blockade. They made one last great push with the troops freed because of Russia's collapse, and it failed. American troops didn't play a big role in that failure, and it was only afterwards, as the German military was collapsing, that they started fighting properly.

France's defeat in 1940 was a failure of leadership, not a failure of courage or commitment. And the reason Germany could exploit that failure was because of the Luftwaffe moreso than the tanks. That's all I'm saying.

Well, the German and Japanese war machines were built around the airplane much more than that of the US, and arguably Great Britain (though they learned very fast), so it is really unclear what would have happened. Civilian causalities in Europe would have been much lower, and it is unlikely that advances in maneuver warfare would change the style of fighting too far from WWI, as it was projected before the impact of the airplane was felt (especially in close ground support missions).

Really, this would have been a much more conventional war, and seeing as the the allies all had very large conventional forces (at least the European ones did) it would not have turned out so badly from the beginning. The Russians would have been much more formidable, and the tank probably would have played a much larger role than it did.

France's defeat in 1940 was a failure of leadership,

Exactly, Regardless of the Technology, it doesnt matter if it isnt implemented properly...

Without Planes, German Commanders would have attacked differently, but the outcome would be the same, the leadership was simply better...

But, now i REALLY need sleep(its killing me to stop this, i love Alternate History) but i must go...night...

This thread is surprisingly full of massive errors given the fact that it's on a forum half full of geeky war nuts (not that there's anything necessarily wrong with geeky war nuts).

The term Wehrmacht has been used to identify the German army specifically, as opposed to the air force, when surely the desired term is Heer, isn't it?

Without the Battle of Britain, the invasion of Britain would presumably have been characterised by the unmitigated slaughter of German marine forces by the almost immeasurably superior Royal Navy, operating in the channel without fear of attack from land-based aircraft (perhaps in such a degree as to prevent the launch of offensive operations on the eastern front in any case?). More likely, it wouldn't have happened in this alternate reality any more than it did in ours, because nobody in Germany would have seen the point in gifting Britain a huge victory.


The German attack on France came where it wasn't expected, and that's why it succeeded? So, the German forces that came through the low countries were unexpected by France and Britain? Isn't it odd, then, that the defenders massed most of their forces there, where they weren't expecting an attack? The superiority of French armour in 1940 is hard to dispute, but it wasn't bested because the Germans attacked where the French didn't expect, but in no small part because it consisted chiefly of infantry support tanks, and was deployed as such, in a modern manoeuvre war.

I can't argue with the loss of Goering as a boost to the German war effort, though. If Stalingrad ever happened, which is hard to predict, one supposes that the Germans would have tried more urgently to break out, and may have made it. Before that, if France's border could still have been breached, which is also uncertain, the BEF would have been over-run by the Heer. Maybe the Allies would never have recovered the strength necessary to invade the continent, no small part of which would have been a POW camp!

This is a very strange concept for a thread, I think!

Well, I was using the Wehrmacht as the Army...

and Luftwaffe as the Airforce...

I was saying that Rommel's Wehrmacht would have had more support if it wasnt for Goering's Luftwaffe fucking things up...

That was my point, the Wehrmacht's the whole military. Heer is equivalent to Luftwaffe, essentially, isn't it? Part of the Wehrmacht, or now the Bundeswehr. Not that it was specifically Rommel's Heer, anyway, but whatever.

I don't dispute that Goering did at least as much harm to the German war effort as good, though. He ought to have lost credibility after Operation Dynamo, or at least after the abandonment of Sealion, I would have thought. Not that I'm complaining, mind!

The term Wehrmacht has been used to identify the German army specifically, as opposed to the air force, when surely the desired term is Heer, isn't it?
If we wanted to be exact, certainly. It stands however to reason that the army and navy would still have been called Wehrmacht even without the airforce in there.

The really odd thing is why it's customary in English to use the German terms, while not doing the same for almost all other countries.

The German attack on France came where it wasn't expected, and that's why it succeeded? So, the German forces that came through the low countries were unexpected by France and Britain?
They didn't come through the low countries in general, they came through one particular part of the low countries, namely crossing the Meuse around the Ardennes, which is hardly ideal tank country. Hence why they reached Sedan without much resistance and from there threatened to cut off the main Allied forces that were indeed standing or moving towards the French-Belgian border region further north, covering the Gambleux gap in particular, where the attack was expected.

The superiority of French armour in 1940 is hard to dispute, but it wasn't bested because the Germans attacked where the French didn't expect, but in no small part because it consisted chiefly of infantry support tanks, and was deployed as such, in a modern manoeuvre war.
Strategically, yes. Tactically, not so much. In effect the French tanks were in a better position to conduct actual tank warfare, and De Gaulle demonstrated as much with his attempts to stop the Germans near Sedan. The French problem was that their tank forces were slowed down by infantry and artillery, while the Germans were not. But tactically, it wasn't like French tanks were only doing fire support. It was just that they were attached to infantry divisions, and as such subordinated under infantry command. That compromised their range and independence - but if they were allowed, they could still do tank-operations.

But that didn't end up making a huge difference, because the French never got the chance to gain the initiative. They were reacting all the time, and after the breakthrough orders weren't getting through anymore anyways. So I maintain that even with independent armour divisions, without a change to the strategic plan for defending the country they would have been outmaneuvred and defeated. That is, of course, assuming that the troops in Belgium would have started to panic and raced back towards France in the same way, rather than attack the German salient.

The really odd thing is why it's customary in English to use the German terms, while not doing the same for almost all other countries.

It's probably because they are such old and respected enemies. As far as I'm aware, the French never had such regimented and well respected military branches, or if they did, they didn't give them cool nicknames.

If we wanted to be exact, certainly. It stands however to reason that the army and navy would still have been called Wehrmacht even without the airforce in there.

The really odd thing is why it's customary in English to use the German terms, while not doing the same for almost all other countries.


They didn't come through the low countries in general, they came through one particular part of the low countries, namely crossing the Meuse around the Ardennes, which is hardly ideal tank country. Hence why they reached Sedan without much resistance and from there threatened to cut off the main Allied forces that were indeed standing or moving towards the French-Belgian border region further north, covering the Gambleux gap in particular, where the attack was expected.


Strategically, yes. Tactically, not so much. In effect the French tanks were in a better position to conduct actual tank warfare, and De Gaulle demonstrated as much with his attempts to stop the Germans near Sedan. The French problem was that their tank forces were slowed down by infantry and artillery, while the Germans were not. But tactically, it wasn't like French tanks were only doing fire support. It was just that they were attached to infantry divisions, and as such subordinated under infantry command. That compromised their range and independence - but if they were allowed, they could still do tank-operations.

But that didn't end up making a huge difference, because the French never got the chance to gain the initiative. They were reacting all the time, and after the breakthrough orders weren't getting through anymore anyways. So I maintain that even with independent armour divisions, without a change to the strategic plan for defending the country they would have been outmaneuvred and defeated. That is, of course, assuming that the troops in Belgium would have started to panic and raced back towards France in the same way, rather than attack the German salient.

Fair post.

I must say that the term Heer doesn't seem to be used nearly so much, which is probably why I felt like mentioning it. It seems odd to me that people talk about the Luftwaffe, Wehrmacht, and sometimes Kriegsmarine, but rarely the Heer. I think my point on that still stands. I mean, I don't think it would have been specifically Rommel's Wehrmacht or Rommel's Heer.

Of course you're not wrong about the particulars of the Low Countries and the German advance, so far as I can tell, but when I was originally pointing that out I was reacting to a fairly general statement that seemed to suggest that the French didn't expect the Germans to come through Belgium at all, and I may have gone too far in assuming it was another, "OMG Maginot's fault!" moment.

Just a partly related comment here... am I imagining or remembering some airborne involvement in the rapid capture of the Liege defences in the Second World War? I can't be bothered to read into it again now, but perhaps another minor change there without aircraft. Unless, as I say, I'm imagining that, which is entirely possible. I do seem to remember that it was only a two or three day affair in a big war, after all.

It's probably because they are such old and respected enemies. As far as I'm aware, the French never had such regimented and well respected military branches, or if they did, they didn't give them cool nicknames.

Légion Etrangère? Troupes de Marine? Chasseurs Alpins? Gendarmerie Nationale? Not quite so widely used in the Anglophone world as terms such as Luftwaffe, no, but hardly less 'regimented' or 'respected'.

C'mon, France has a history of a thousand years of maintaining a large territory against numerous powerful enemies, including periods of continental domination and intercontinental empire. There's plenty of respect for the French military, just not amongst loudmouth Anglo-American nationalist types who take the surrender-monkey joke a bit too seriously, and would probably regret it if they ever found themselves fighting the largest military in Western Europe :)

Légion Etrangère? Troupes de Marine? Chasseurs Alpins? Gendarmerie Nationale? Not quite so widely used in the Anglophone world as terms such as Luftwaffe, no, but hardly less 'regimented' or 'respected'.

C'mon, France has a history of a thousand years of maintaining a large territory against numerous powerful enemies, including periods of continental domination and intercontinental empire. There's plenty of respect for the French military, just not amongst loudmouth Anglo-American nationalist types who take the surrender-monkey joke a bit too seriously, and would probably regret it if they ever found themselves fighting the largest military in Western Europe :)

Ok, so I forgot about the foreign legion. And I'm sure that the English heritage of America has forever poisoned me against the French military tradition (besides what I know of it, which is lots of obscure victories in the days of yore and a lot of epic fails for different reasons in a more recent time frame).

That being said, we also haven't fought a war against the French since what? The seven years war? America wasn't even a country back then. There's little reason for us to know (or fear) branches of the French military.

I have to admit that us French aren't very good at giving cool names to our military...hey ! Wait a minute !

Never heard of... the Garde Impériale ( Imperial Guard )? Ok, Napoleon vintage...
The Garde Républicaine (Republican Guard) is a term at least English and Americans must have heard not so long ago, as it was used in a lots of countries including Saddam's Irak :D

The aformentioned Légion Etrangère ( still retaining this name today even if the majority of its soldiers are now of French origins )

Oh, and there's a reason why the moto of the wonderful SAS is in French language, but I don't remember why.

And on the overall, most of the world armies use French Revolution military grades, I just see UK and Germany using others.

I don't think that the achievments of the French Army in WWI could be forgot, taking the full power of the Reich during 1914 ( remember: France, 40 millions inhabitants, Second Reich: 66 millions...even with an East Front, it's still a huge difference... )

And I thank you Neu Leonstein for your interventions about WW2, who could hardly be considered as thoses of a French nationalist ^^
I also wast lots of time keep remembering peoples how the whole Fall of France occured.
And to be perfectly honest, Free French Forces weren't the main Allied force in Europe, but have done some very good job, including broking the German lines in Italy and doing a lots of fighting in Alsace during the last German counter-attack of the war.

The main fact is that the Allied were waiting for the German in Belgium and Netherlands, and were cut off by an impetuous assault conducted into a very unfavorable terrain for tanks.
This operation was successfull ONLY because of the air superiority of the Lutwaffe, so without planes, Germany couldn't have won the first stages of the war ( Poland wouldn't have fallen in a month also ), Japan couldn't have achieved any naval victory.

And USA would have engaged in the war anyway, first against Japan, I think: it was the prominent opponent to US colonial empire in Pacific, Germany was a target only to prevent one dictatorial power ( and the second most industrialized country in the world... ) to gain the upper hand in Europe.

Edit: about fighting between USA and France, there are very few but they exist.
I don't think there's any country in the world who have not fought against us, exactly like Britain :]
The Seven Years war is not relevant, because as you said, the USA doesn't exist.
I would mention the Quasi-War: a little naval undeclared war between French privateers and the US Navy, during the last days of the Revolution, when America choose to renew full commercial cooperation with UK, at the expense of French traders ( I must say this was not very cool from you guys :D )
Plus, I think there was some very light fightings against Union troops during the French Mexican expédition.
And, at last, the greatest military engagment between or two countries is the Allied landing in Morocco and Alger: there was defensive Vichy troops. Even if half of them joined the Free French Forces or refused to fight, even if the French Resistance destroyed their supply lines and silenced half of the coastal defenses, there was still a few hundred loss on each sides.

But on the overall, I admit I am please to say that there is at least one great country in the world who was never our ennemy :]
It's refreshing !

And what about if we go back to how the war REALLY happend and germany actually built the jet fighter? wouldnt they have won?

They did built several Jet aircraft. and they were used
ME262 being the most effective.

I could say the Natter, but that was rocket powered not jet.

I have to admit that us French aren't very good at giving cool names to our military...hey ! Wait a minute !

Never heard of... the Garde Impériale ( Imperial Guard )? Ok, Napoleon vintage...
The Garde Républicaine (Republican Guard) is a term at least English and Americans must have heard not so long ago, as it was used in a lots of countries including Saddam's Irak :D


And on the overall, most of the world armies use French Revolution military grades, I just see UK and Germany using others.
*snip*
But on the overall, I admit I am please to say that there is at least one great country in the world who was never our ennemy :]
It's refreshing !
I know that the French have a long and storied military tradition. Post French revolution/Napoleon it ain't that hot. They turned out alright though.

Yeah, just give it time, if there's another war between large nation states, I wouldn't bet against France and the US being on different sides. I really wouldn't bet on anything in particular, but...well...nevermind.

EDIT: And I wouldn't give a "good job" to any army from WWI. Really no one used what turned out to be the next generation of warfare in a widespread manner, even though it was shown to be effective on many occasions. If you want the definition of a quagmire, WWI is it.

I Disagree, Tanks do the job just fine, and can overrun a position, especially sparsely defended Netherlands, Belgium, and Poland...The Netherlands for one only capitulated because Rotterdam was bombed. Those tanks had a very hard time getting through our waterline (we flooded the land to prevent the german advance).

I know that the French have a long and storied military tradition. Post French revolution/Napoleon it ain't that hot. They turned out alright though.

Yeah, just give it time, if there's another war between large nation states, I wouldn't bet against France and the US being on different sides. I really wouldn't bet on anything in particular, but...well...nevermind.

EDIT: And I wouldn't give a "good job" to any army from WWI. Really no one used what turned out to be the next generation of warfare in a widespread manner, even though it was shown to be effective on many occasions. If you want the definition of a quagmire, WWI is it.

I'm happy we are not so hot now, just doing a good job ( Kolwezi, Côte d'Ivoire, Afghanistan, Tchad, now against Somalian pirates... ) and lots of peacekeeping is enough for me :]

I think that's it's very hardly plausible that one day USA and France fought against each other...the only reason I see would be a war between USA and EU ( highly unlikely ) or one of the two countries shifting from democracy to evil dictatorship with agressive intentions.

We are friends, with a tumultuous relationship, and that is also fine for me, it's a proof that none of us is the lapdog of the other and that we have still the balls to tell you what we think is right.

Hmmm... if we start out with the premise that airplanes were never invented, then I think we should be looking back at WWI. While the impact of direct combat role of aircraft in WWI was limited, aerial reconnaissance did have a large impact. With aerial reconnaissance limited to observation balloons, tactical innovations such as Hutier's "infiltration tactics" may have been an easier leap, and the war could well have turned out differently..

I'm happy we are not so hot now, just doing a good job ( Kolwezi, Côte d'Ivoire, Afghanistan, Tchad, now against Somalian pirates... ) and lots of peacekeeping is enough for me :]

I think that's it's very hardly plausible that one day USA and France fought against each other...the only reason I see would be a war between USA and EU ( highly unlikely ) or one of the two countries shifting from democracy to evil dictatorship with agressive intentions.

We are friends, with a tumultuous relationship, and that is also fine for me, it's a proof that none of us is the lapdog of the other and that we have still the balls to tell you what we think is right.

Sounds good. Though I could see a war with the EU (probably sans GB, but you never know), especially if a specific point of contention arises between the US and the EU over an economic issue. It probably won't happen given how decentralized the US economy is right now, but the possibility exists.

I think WWI is properly a good example of how a modern war would have turned out without planes. It would likely have been similar in WWII had they not been invented.

I think WWI is properly a good example of how a modern war would have turned out without planes. It would likely have been similar in WWII had they not been invented.

I'm going to have to disagree. I expect WWI would have been much more fluid had aerial reconnaissance not made spotting troop movement much easier, and thus made it easier to counter said troop movements.

I'm going to have to disagree. I expect WWI would have been much more fluid had aerial reconnaissance not made spotting troop movement much easier, and thus made it easier to counter said troop movements.

Perhaps, but I think the general principles of digging in and holding on would have been similar. It's unlikely the Germans could have rolled over France, and even Poland, if they didn't have aircraft.

Without the Luftwaffe the Germans wouldnt have made near as many mistakes, Herman Goering was a fucktard...Herman Göring was part of the gig because of his status as a war hero. Without planes, no fighter ace Herman Göring, no war hero. Göring would likely never have had any influence.

Perhaps, but I think the general principles of digging in and holding on would have been similar. It's unlikely the Germans could have rolled over France, and even Poland, if they didn't have aircraft.Well, it wouldn't have been a trench war, at least; because with tanks that became obsolete.
Planes aren't the only thing that made WWII different from WWI.

Perhaps, but I think the general principles of digging in and holding on would have been similar. It's unlikely the Germans could have rolled over France, and even Poland, if they didn't have aircraft.

"Dig in and hold" works a lot better when you can spot the massing counter-attack from the air. With the airplane, a large part of tactical surprise is gone. Without that, troop movement for both attack and counter-attack becomes easier, with a coresponding greater fluidity.

Well, it wouldn't have been a trench war, at least; because with tanks that became obsolete.
Planes aren't the only thing that made WWII different from WWI.

Well, WWI (which Philosopy and I were addressing) would most likely have remained one to some degree, although to a lesser degree. My point remains that I'm not sure we can at all predict what WWII would look like, or even if there would have been one, had the airplane not been in use in WWI.