Wars and Conflicts聽 permalink
Diferent result?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
If Hollywood is to be believed, the US fought the forces of Japan to a standstill single handed, but in a book I picked up,it gave interesting figures. According to it, Japan had 6 million men under arms. Of which 5 million were tied down in China, either fighting, doing garrison duty, or on the border with Russia. Of remaining million, many were in the Airforce or the navy. The rest were spread out from the India border down into Malaya where many were tied up fighting the Communists and more engaged against the Australians, leaving how many fighting the US troops? But suppose Japan hadn't had 5 mil.tied up in China. How would an extra 5 million seasoned troops thrown against America and the allied troops. Would they have thought about a follow up landing after Pearl Harbour.After all at Christmas 1941, their navy was the most powerful in the Pacific. Would the death rates from the island hopping war been so high that the US would have just dug in and waited until the atomic bombs arrived. All good What ifs?
Grumpy Fred -
Message 2
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
Grumpyfred
A good post: definitely an example of the "last straw that breaks the camel's back"..
It is fair to point out, however, that Japanese involvement on the Asian mainland- and elsewhere- had escalated over about ten years before Pearl Harbour: and that attack was based upon the idea that the weight of the USA might/would eventually prove decisive to Japanese military and commercial aims. It was hoped that a pre-emptive strike might have allowed them time to wrap up affairs in places like China before the US was war-ready. So the disparity of deployment to which you refer was a cause of the US involvement in the war, and not a side isse.
Perhaps the recent controversy here in the UK touches on a similar state of affairs.. It is true that British resolve prevented Nazi Germany from achieving victory in the 2WW; but it is surely also true that carrying the war into Europe offensively in the Western zone was only really possible with the weight of US support and involvement.
Cass -
Message 3
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Saturday, 24th July 2010
it didnt actually matter that the bulk of the japaneses army was in china
even if there were more troops on each island the us - even taking huge casualties would have won bit by bit - does it matter how many troops were in the banzai charges
the end game was the invasion of the homeland - didnt matter where the main army was - there was 60 million combatants all willing to fight to the death
st -
Message 4
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Sunday, 25th July 2010
Island hopping would have been bloodier, but the US (and allies like the British & Indians fighting inland) would eventually have won through and defeated Japan.
Economic US power and sheer numbers of men, arms and equipment was what won the Pacific War for the US...with the A Bomb technology of course ! -
Message 5
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 25th July 2010
It is also questionable as to whether there would have been any point in having more Japanese troops on those islands.. They were not taken through any weakness in their defence, and a garrison can be too large presenting great logistical problems of supply.
Surely the Battle of Midway was crucial because as there was so much more sea than land the US mastery of the sea, and therefore the air, just how many Japanese were squeezed on to islands- including those of Japan itself- was not a decisive issue. As with Nazi Germany carpet bombing may have hardened feelings and made unconditional surrender the only possible outcome, but the dislocation and damage- which could not be matched by kame-kazi [or vengeance weapons]- also guaranteed only one result.
Cass -
Message 6
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 7
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Tuesday, 27th July 2010
Having a considerable portion of those trooops available might have allowed the New Guinea campaign to be brought to a victorious conclusion, followed by an invasion of Australia, and also given the Japanese victory in the war in Assam. How much difference that would have made I can't be sure, but it could have dragged the war on for years - no way of getting a nuke to Japan without the island bases, for one thing.
-
Message 8
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Tuesday, 27th July 2010
It is unlikely that having many more Army forces available in the Pacific would have helped much: The Japanese Navy was already unable to properly supply the troops that were in the area. Shipping in more soldiers often amounted to a contest between the rate of reinforcement and the rate of starvation.
An invasion of Australia was entirely out of the question. The task of putting a substantial force ashore there and supplying it was well beyond anything the Navy could undertake to do. Likewise, Hawaii was far out of the logistic reach of the Japanese.
At least initially, however, the Army forces on mainland Asia included some of the more experienced, better trained units that were very useful in the Pacific. This lead to the best-trained and best-equipped units being drained off to support the Pacific war, severely weakening the forces that remained behind. By 1945 the state of equipment and training of the remaining forces, although they were still numerically strong, was unimpressive.
On the other hand, the forces in Korea, Manchuria and China controlled large resources in those countries. Many had a relatively quiet time, being engaged more in irregular skirmishing than in battle, and were partially self-sufficient by what they took from the occupied countries. So from the Japanese perspective, it was better to leave them there, than to recall them and have to provide them with scarce food and supplies. -
Message 9
Posted by LairigGhru (U14051689) on Wednesday, 28th July 2010
<>
There's another 'what if' for you, GrumpyFred. What if the aircraft carriers had been around during the attack and suffered the same fate as the other warships? -
Message 10
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Wednesday, 28th July 2010
"...There's another 'what if' for you, GrumpyFred. What if the aircraft carriers had been around during the attack and suffered the same fate as the other warships?..."
I suspect the answer here is relatively straight forward. Presuming these aircraft carriers were sunk, the US would have built new ones.
This would un-doubtedly delay affairs somewhat (up to a year ?), but, again, the outcome is the same. Japan loses. In any event, the key moment in the Pacific war was when Japan came in to range of the big bombers. This facilitated fire bomb attacks and, eventually the nuclear strikes.
As has been pointed out, the industrial capacity of the US was hugely ahead of the Japanese.
In Asia and in Europe, the allies out produced the axis. This is the key element in the outcome of the war. Unfortunately, it is not 'sexy' history, un-like the stories of derring-do, so is all too often neglected. -
Message 11
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Wednesday, 28th July 2010
I'd agree completely, Tim!
A friend of mine, who was around at the time, claims the war was won largely by 'thick wit' - an Irish expression meaning roughly 'battering away without much finesse, until the other guy is senseless'
In spite of all the science, technology, intelligence, and knowhow, I still think that played a huge part in the victory. Quite simply, we had a lot more of everything, and we could afford to use it without mercy.
As Saddam also found out to his cost, courage and revolutionary fervour is no substitute for air power and tanks! -
Message 12
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 28th July 2010
giraffe47,
As Saddam also found out to his cost, courage and revolutionary fervour is no substitute for air power and tanks!聽
This has to be the first time I've seen Saddam credited with "courage and revolutionary fervour." -
Message 13
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Wednesday, 28th July 2010
He may or may not have had it - but it was demonstrably present in Iraqi forces during the Iran-Iraq war. I think the legacy of Desert Storm had dampened their ardour quite markedly by the time it was "Seconds away, Round 2".
-
Message 14
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Wednesday, 28th July 2010
"...A friend of mine, who was around at the time, claims the war was won largely by 'thick wit'..."
The Irish have a phrase for everything.
The Germans were very proud that their Tiger tank could knock out the enemy at a rate of 3 to 1.
The allies were very happy that they could build more than 4 tanks for every one German tank.
The tank crews were just happy to go home. -
Message 15
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Thursday, 29th July 2010
RE msg 12 & 13
Yes - I was referring to the troops, not Saddam personally, although I suspect nobody got to where he did, in the environment in which he lived, by being short of personal courage.
I am reading a book about the seige of Leningrad at present, and the same idea emerges - the Russians all too often expected 'revolutionary fervour' and 'elan' to be enough to carry the day, whereas a more mundane dependance on machine guns was often proved to be more effective.
The French in 1914, the Brits on the Somme, the Revolutionary Guards, the list keeps getting longer. Generals and leaders seem to place a lot of dependance on that old saying about the 'moral being to the physical as 3 is to 1'. However, that statement does depend somewhat on the equipment not being as 1 is to 100! -
Message 16
Posted by AlexanderLiberty (U14397753) on Thursday, 29th July 2010
The key event of WWII in Asia was the decision of Indian Authorities to fight beside the Allies
, if they鈥檝e chosen to be neutral or to support the Axis, the middle east and its oil wells would have conquered by the rising sun and the war in Europe, North Africa and Pacific would鈥檝e turned in Axis favor. The main problem during the conflict was the troops refueling (think about the last days of German Army, Battle of the Bulge & C; The PLUTO PIPELINES).
Probably, in this situation other countries (Turkey, Spain and some Latin American states) join in the Axis under the banner of the 鈥渁nti-imperialism鈥 to split up the BE and the French Empire.
The final result of the war didn鈥檛 change, the Axis territories spited between the USSR and Anglo-American fall down but with better peace treaties (for ex. no two Germanys)
-
Message 17
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 3rd August 2010
A strange conclusion, Alexander, given that the 'Indian Authorities' were, in essence, the British government.
There were attempts to persuade Indians to fight for the Japanese, which had limited success. However, very few people were persuaded that the Japanese could or would offer a better version of imperialism than the British. The Chinese example was quite close to hand. In any event, most soldiers most of the time stay loyal to their commanders at the outset.
In reality, most of the Indians who went over to the Japanese did so for better rations in captivity.
There was never any chance of Spain entering the war, and South American countries would have thought long and hard before taking on the US. Turkey would probably have stayed neutral barring an attack on it, which was not an impossibility if the war had developed differently.. -
Message 18
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 4th August 2010
TimTrack
There was never any chance of Spain entering the war ... 聽
A pity FDR, Churchill and their planners never considered that. The Torch force could have landed in Tunisia rather than Morocco, thus bagging Panzerarmee Afrika in bigger numbers and saving the Allies seven months of fighting. -
Message 19
Posted by tomp (U14575997) on Thursday, 5th August 2010
Weight of numbers, resource and after an attack like Pearl Harbour meant that Japan was destined to lose. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the war had ended in Europe but dragged on in Asia to see how Russia would have acted. If the US had been held up on the Pacific Islands an invasion of Japan by Russia from the West could have occured, probably an idea that spurred on the development of the Atomic bombs.
-
Message 20
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 5th August 2010
But the Russians did invade and (If my memory serves me right) still refuses to return the islands to the north they occupied. We already know that loss of life didn't both Stalin, so Japan could have ended up falling to the USSR. An interesting What if?
-
Message 21
Posted by AlexanderLiberty (U14397753) on Friday, 13th August 2010
TimTrack (U1730472);
It's strange 'cause it's alternate history and everything's possible.
My scenario showing, at first time, a fast growth of the Axis military power comes from different happenings:
1. India neutrality like Ireland or collaboration like some Indians prisoners did (40.000 effectives it鈥檚 a limited success???) (I've talked with some Indians about that and they think that it should have be);
2. The Axis conquest of Middle East and North Africa; The Arab independence was stopped by France and BE interests so it should be easy control this area during the war;
3. The decision of Turkey (it has good relationships with Germany since WWI) and Spain (Franco's power was made with Axis military aid), after point 1 and 2, to fight beside Axis it鈥檚 a consequence 'cause the Mediterranean sea it became an Axis Lake (the Italian Navy was the first naval force in the Med sea and the control of North Africa and Middle East doesn't give a chance to RN);
4. South America do the same doing in the real WWII: come into the war when the war ended (see it in any history book); Brazil it鈥檚 the only came in 1942.
In the second part a counter offensive made by USSR, USA and BE favourite by Axis civil wars (like operation Valkiria) and FRAGGING episodes in Axis armies.
The conclusion: an Allied final victory consequence of Axis fragmentation.
GANDHI
The 'Indian Authorities' were, in essence, the British government, sure !; but after Amristar British citizens and troops in India were sitting on a clock bomb.
Thousands of freedom fighters were killed or injured by police gunfire, and hundreds of thousands were arrested. Gandhi and his supporters made it clear they would not support the war effort unless India were granted immediate independence.
Gandhi was criticised by some Congress party members and other Indian political groups, both pro-British and anti-British. Some felt that not supporting Britain more in its struggle against Nazi Germany was unethical. Others felt that Gandhi's refusal for India to participate in the war was insufficient and more direct opposition should be taken, while Britain fought against Nazism yet continued to contradict itself by refusing to grant India Independence. These people give the real support to the British government in India against Nazi.
THE BE
I鈥檓 agree with you very few people probably were persuaded that the Japanese could or would offer a better version of imperialism than the British (the too rapid end of Brit presence in Asia and Middle East produced many wars: India vs Pakistan, The actual war in Iraq and Afghanistan) but Japan could be seem a rapid exit strategy for independence;
The Chinese example
Chinese people hate at same time Occidental and Japanese Empires so they鈥檙e self-centred; India culture is different, it based on the idea of everything is fine 鈥榗ause everything finished(Reincarnation and others theories) , so Japanese Empire or BE is the same and India鈥檚 Rajas as at the same time didn鈥檛 care about 鈥渁uthorities鈥 they want only to have power.
Bye
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 聽to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.