Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
What if...One change to WWII?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by _A_J_A_ (U1908577) on Monday, 22nd August 2005
In this 'what if', with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight obviously, what ONE trivial or major event or detail would you alter around or during the whole of WWII?
I tender the bombing of Pearl Harbour to have happened two years previously(Dec.1939), just as the Nazis were pushing the allies from Europe.
With the might of US manpower, economic muscle and vast materiel brought into the war on the allied side so close to events at Dunkirk(shifting Roosevelt's scheming and dithering into a definite war footing) and so soon before the Battle of Britain(Summer/Autumn 1940), I believe that the Nazis would have been assaulted at Normandy years earlier, and the war eventually shortened as a result. -
Message 2
Posted by Trident_MKII (U1823460) on Monday, 22nd August 2005
as the US did just before the invasion of iraq, a 'decapitation strike' on hitler and his commanders just before war broke out
unfortunatly we didn't have JDAM or TLAM then so it would have been a bit more tricky to get a direct hit but perhaps even SF team could have carried out an asassination against him, it is possible that this could backfire and all military attention could have been directed against britain instead of the east
if this doesn't exactly fit in with your question then i would think of a new one which would be that we had the bomb in 1939, instantly we have the power to stop all military agression all around the world
-
Message 3
Posted by _A_J_A_ (U1908577) on Monday, 22nd August 2005
Yes, they fit with my question, good answers.
It's known that SOE had drawn up an assassination plan for Hitler in 1944, using some defected and anti-Nazi German PoW's, but shelved the plans as by then Hitler(neurotic and irrational) was our greatest ally, and so in a great position to lose the war for himself! -
Message 4
Posted by Lindau (U709807) on Tuesday, 23rd August 2005
Could you include the build up to the war? If so i would suggest the failure to invade the saarland or a least stop Hitler when he re-entered it. Cheers, Lindau.
-
Message 5
Posted by Battlegroup (U1908324) on Tuesday, 23rd August 2005
In the scenario as printed, you have not taken Japan into consideration.
Bearing in mind that the attack on Pearl was forecast in the mid 20s, and that the attack was picked up by both radar and Submarine, they must have known it was coming. -
Message 6
Posted by Trident_MKII (U1823460) on Tuesday, 23rd August 2005
hi Battlegroup,
it's ok because my atomic weapon is already developed so we can nuke them anyway -
Message 7
Posted by Steve Wright (U230412) on Tuesday, 23rd August 2005
Four on Arnhem. All have been discussed in other forums, but still worth raising again:
1. A glider coup-de-main at the bridge. There was sufficient space to land and the ground would have supported gliders. The idea was proposed by Col George Chatterton, CO British Glider Pilot Regiment, but was dismissed. Chatterton was called a 'b****y murderer and assassin' for his pains.
2. A second lift on the first day. Time was available to do this.
3. A huge reduction in the number of gliders used by Browning for his HQ.
4. Tanks from 6th Airborne Recce Regt. -
Message 8
Posted by Spiletrosher (U1649090) on Wednesday, 24th August 2005
This is all correct on Arnhem as far as I've read. However, the trouble with all this counter-factual nonsense is it ignores the historical context in which decisions were made. Forces were not landed near the bridge objectives in Market Garden because the German parachutists had been massacred when attempting to land in such a way in Crete two years earlier. I also think Market Garden shows that the Western Allies, particularly Britain were becoming short of manpower by late 1944. Huge airborn armies had been created from almost nothing in 1940, and were some of the few formations that hadn't been used in a major battle in which the were the principal component by 1944. However, by the time of the Rhine crossing in 1945, alll these lessons had been learnt and the operation was a success
-
Message 9
Posted by Steve Wright (U230412) on Wednesday, 24th August 2005
Forces were not landed near the bridge objectives in Market Garden because the German parachutists had been massacred when attempting to land in such a way in Crete two years earlier.Μύ
That's a new one on me. I thought that the presence of anti-aircraft units was a prime reason for not using a coup-de-main.
However, by the time of the Rhine crossing in 1945, all these lessons had been learnt and the operation was a successΜύ
The Rhine Crossing was a daylight landing in a heavily defended area. There were infinitely more anti-aircraft guns than at Arnhem. Despite this, a coup-de-main of 15 gliders took place on two river bridges. The main lesson learned from Arnhem was a greater concentration of troops in the attack and landing gliders tactically, thus putting their passengers as close to their objectives as possible. -
Message 10
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Wednesday, 24th August 2005
if this doesn't exactly fit in with your question then i would think of a new one which would be that we had the bomb in 1939, instantly we have the power to stop all military agression all around the worldΜύ
Since we weren't even willing to throw Hitler out of the Rhineland in 1936 I cant see us threatening to "nuke" him (what, to stop him invading Poland??). Remember the UK was trying to appease Hitler rather than confront him at this time, and there was a lot of pro-German feeling based on the idea that Nazi Germany was a bulwark against communism
Wars are about politics not technology and to think that one country having "the bomb" would stop all wars is a bit of a fantasy. -
Message 11
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Wednesday, 24th August 2005
AJA (if I may call you that withought the underscores),
Speaking from a very interesting "What If" point of view, could I remove Hitler from power through the Wehrmacht in say early 1941. Come to a negotiated peace with Britain by agreeing to give up the land in Poland and France we (the Germans) had possession of (in return for some very advantageous trade). [Jozef, you may have some comments about this which I'm sure will destroy bits of this What If?, I enjoy playing devils advocate though].
Then, after Japan had bombed Pearl Harbour, stood by the terms of the Pact of Steel, pointing out that we (the Germans) weren't obligised to declare war against the USA as they (the USA) were not the agressors.
Then, point out to Britain and France that despite they're obligations to protect Poland there were still Soviet troops occupying Poland, shouldn't "we" do something about it?.
By this time, hopefully it'll be say early 1943, a strong Germany, a strong Anglo Franco pact, an awakened USA.
Can Germany lose?
Cheers AA. -
Message 12
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Thursday, 25th August 2005
AJA - message 1
In terms of a minor change possibly the 4th Indian. O'Connor's spectacularly effective offensive in Libya was terminated for the shipment of troops to Greece. However, in the middle of it, there was a pause of about a month while the 6th Australian Div arrived and was trained up for desert work because the 4th Indian had been transferred south for operations against Italian East Africa. If it hadn't been transferred the offensives could have continued, giving the Italians no pause to recover nor the Germans time to send aid. Italian East Africa could have been picked up virtually at leisure after the conquest of Tripoli and rather than the long and costly desert campaign Britain would have had the resources to respond to the Japanese offensive, stopping them dead in Malaya, possibly still in time to invade Italy in 43.
On the larger scale switch resources from the bomber offensive to the Atlantic. Could have won that campaign much earlier and saved many lives, as well as a lot of production. This is the one thing that might have made a 43 invasion of France practical.
On the Axis side so many. Halt before Moscow rather than dashing on as the weather worsened. Don't do a DOW on the US. Go for Moscow in 42 rather than the Caucasus. Treat the Slavs decently. For the Japanese, DON'T declare war, or possibly just attack the Dutch and British. Not clear whether the US would have gone to war ton defend European colonies and if they had it wouldn't have prompted the same fury in the US, which might have made a negotiated peace possibly.
Steve
PS - On holiday for a fortnight after tomorrow so unfortunately will not have much scope to discuss things. Apologies about that. -
Message 13
Posted by lambertsimnel (U1940926) on Sunday, 28th August 2005
An easy answer.
That the attempt on Hitler's life made in November 1939 by Georg Elser had succeeded. A joiner the attempt was made completely on his own and had he succeeded, without us knowing it, he would have been one of the greatest men in history.
A simplistic reading of the situation perhaps but as the historian Ian Kershaw said "No Hitler no holocaust". -
Message 14
Posted by hadrian33 (U929374) on Tuesday, 30th August 2005
Im curious to hear everyones opinion of the following what if:
What if the Nazis had not spent resources on jet aircraft, rockets, nuclear weapons, or outdated capital ships and instead had channeled those resources to their submarine fleet. What if Dornitz had started the war with say 150 submarines instead of the 57 that were operational in Sept 39? My own opinion is that the UK would have sued for peace before the effect of US naval convoys could have been felt. Im especially interested to hear what stevep has to say about this, since I so much enjoy the level of scholarship in his opinions. -
Message 15
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Tuesday, 13th September 2005
Hadrian33
I think that was one of the greatest and most overlooked options for Germany. True they were arming as fast as they could be the resources committed to the surface fleet and especially the Bismarck and Tirpitz could have been spent much more efficiently on the U boats.
Given how close the Germans came to defeating us in WWI it is amazing, and very lucky, that they didn't commit more resources to it until it was too late. True the convoy system had defeated the U boats in WWI and with the invention of ASDIC after WWI there might have been an argument that the subs had had their day. However some of the German naval commanders had devised tactics, such as the wolf packs and surface attacks at night, which nullified many of the British advantages.
We do have the advantage of hindsight, which is SO useful. Given the conservative nature of large sections of German society and Hitler's relative lack of interest in naval affairs it is possibly not surprising that they failed to take up the option.
If they had, especially given the run-down nature of the RN, then the result could have been a far worse slaughter in the Atlantic than historically, especially once France fell and the Germans got use of the Bay of Biscay bases. Probably would have forces Britain out of the war before the US seriously considered joining. Or even if Hitler had still been rash enough to attack the US making it far more difficult for vital supplies, let alone US forces to reach Britain. If Britain was forced to make peace then, despite Hitler, I think the Germans and their allies would have eventually defeated Russia but either way it would have been an even larger and more appalling conflict.
There were things the allies could have done to improve their position in the Atlantic. Quite possibly far less committed to the Bomber offensive as a fraction of the resources could have close the air gap much soon. Also getting the US to listen to British advice earlier. However I doubt if they could have been in time to make a significant difference IF Germany had started the war with such forces. [Especially since, being fairly small and cheap they would have been far more difficult to detect, hence less likely trigger a British pre-war response. Coupled with the fact, as said, many naval commanders thought ASDIC rendered the U boat impotent].
Anyway, rabbitted on a bit but those are my thoughts on the question.
Steve -
Message 16
Posted by Gilgamesh of Uruk (U211168) on Wednesday, 14th September 2005
Ok, I've been thinking of WWI and submarines too, but in a rather different context.
How about Britain and France sending a flotilla of subs each into the Baltic to operate from Polish ports? They'd have been in a position to close off the Lulea ore traffic, and assist the Poles in the defence of their ports, and might have deterred the Russians from signing the Ribbentrop / Molotov pact, joining in the dismemberment of Poland, secured the independance of the Baltic States etc. -
Message 17
Posted by SDG (U2050287) on Wednesday, 14th September 2005
What If the Japanese Attacked Russia and not the USA would the SS have Captured and held stlingrad as it was the troops the Russians held back in the east to fight the japanese that eventually beat them at stalingrad. and of course the germans and the Japanese carve Russia up between themselves.
What if the British were beat? were would The USA mass its troops for a european war? would the Iron Curtain extend as far the Sahara and would the US have even got involved in the European theater
These are my two favourites. -
Message 18
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Wednesday, 14th September 2005
Ok, I've been thinking of WWI and submarines too, but in a rather different context.
How about Britain and France sending a flotilla of subs each into the Baltic to operate from Polish ports? They'd have been in a position to close off the Lulea ore traffic, and assist the Poles in the defence of their ports, and might have deterred the Russians from signing the Ribbentrop / Molotov pact, joining in the dismemberment of Poland, secured the independance of the Baltic States etc.Μύ
Gil
Presuming the 1st sentence is a typo and you mean WWII.
While the idea has some potential I think there are some serious flaws.
a) You could not have started operations against Germany until the war started, which would be too late to prevent the signing of the Nazi - Soviet Pact. Unless you mean that public presence of such a force might have served as a deterrent. I doubt it, more likely that it would prompt heavy air attacks at the start of the conflict and possibly mining of access lines from the actual bases. Furthermore I doubt if interruption of Baltic trade would have hindered Stalin much.
b) More seriously, while such a force might have threatened supply lines to the Swedish orefields there are a couple of problems here. For one Poland, and especially its limited coastline, didn't last long enough for any real effect. Also, in the enclosed and shallow Baltic, subs would be at a serious disadvantage, even attacking without warning, which the allies would have sought to avoid. Not to mention do you know whether German or Swedish, or other neutral ships carried the ore?
c) I'm not sure how easy it would have been to get the ships to the Baltic. Know British subs operated from Russian ports in WWI but they had difficulty getting to Russia and that at a time before air power was significant. To reach and operate from a relatively short section of coast would have been difficult.
d) Possibly most of all I don't think either of the western allies would have had the organisation and drive to actually either think about such an idea or push it through governments that I think were still desperate to believe that war could be avoided. [Which is probably a good job as I think it would have just resulted in heavy losses for the reasons above].
However an interesting idea. Must admit I never though of anything like that. Know that the Russian subs did a fair bit of damage towards the end of the war so might have been some potential for operations under the right circumstances. However don't think Poland's limited coastline would have made it practical even if the country had been able to resist longer.
Steve -
Message 19
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Wednesday, 14th September 2005
What If the Japanese Attacked Russia and not the USA would the SS have Captured and held stlingrad as it was the troops the Russians held back in the east to fight the japanese that eventually beat them at stalingrad. and of course the germans and the Japanese carve Russia up between themselves.
What if the British were beat? were would The USA mass its troops for a european war? would the Iron Curtain extend as far the Sahara and would the US have even got involved in the European theater
These are my two favourites.Μύ
ShaneDG
A couple of interesting ideas. If the Japanese had joined the attack on Russia in 41 it would have made the Soviet position very bad. I think the size of the area plus the poor quality of Japanese armour would have meant they would make relatively little progress and faced heavy casualties. Coupled with the allied blockage the Japanese empire would have faced serious problems. However it could have posed some serious political problems for Britain.
Most to the point however the Siberian troops that played such an important role in throwing back the German advance on Moscow wouldn't have been available. Without those well equipped forces, used to the bitter weather, the Red Army would probably have done it with rapidly organised militia uses. I.e. suffering much heavier casualties and probably gaining far less ground. This would have left them even weaker in 42 and if the Germans had been closer to Moscow might have enabled the generals to persuade Hitler to go for Moscow rather than the oilfields. Russia could have been at least crippled and you would probably have seen the war in Europe decided by nuclear strikes with the eastern front somewhere between the Dnieper and Urals at that time.
On a defeat of Britain it would depend on the exact circumstances. If we continued to fight on from the empire and commonwealth then possibly operations in the ME might still have been possible. However possibly again B29's delivering bombs from say Iceland or some Atlantic islands. This is presuming the US entered the war at all, which it might not. The worse case might be the establishment of some pro-fascist government in Britain in which case, even if only partially effective, it would very likely mean the entire old world hemisphere ended up under fascism.
Steve -
Message 20
Posted by Gilgamesh of Uruk (U211168) on Wednesday, 14th September 2005
Steve :-
That's no typo - I was referring to the WWI days when the Baltic was known as Horton's privatee lake, and wondering if a move to send subs - and perhaps surface ships too - immediately the guarantees were given to Poland - might have had a deterrent effect. I don't think anyone in those days had realised quite how influential air power was going to prove against subs, on either side, and the Germans and Russians might well have failed to appreciate its effectiveness. You are probably right to say it wouldn't have worked, but I thought it was interesting enough to be worth suggesting. -
Message 21
Posted by rhfrost (U2052013) on Wednesday, 14th September 2005
What is truth?
I have voiced a deep frustration. I have noticed a disinterest of friends when it comes to entertaining thoughts of God. My friends and acquaintances have no particular complaint against God, but also no NEED or interest whatsoever. I cannot understand the mind that has no need to know if God exists, what it means if Christ really is who He says He is, or whether any of it is even true or not true in the first place.
Here in lies the heart of my complaint. The greatest pursuit in life should be for what is true. It is upsetting, indeed staggering, to see so many give up the quest of truth for a lesser pursuit. Blaise Pascal and C.S. Lewis agreed. Pascal, was deeply frustrated by the human tendency to flat out avoid the truth, especially when it challenges our will or sense of comfort. Lewis was bothered by the difference between humans and animals. What makes a man human is his desire to know things, to ask, to examine, and to understand. When a person loses this desire, it is as if he has become something less than human.
Indeed, there comes a certain responsibility to being human. There are great and far-reaching questions we all must answer, questions we can wholly choose to ignore, but in so doing we must realize that even βnot answeringβ is still in a very real sense an answer.
In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus makes a pointed statement. He says, βIf you are not for me, you are against me.β (Mathew 12:30) For many, his words are hard to take in. We prefer not to think in such stark terms. Whereas during election time or at a sporting event we may be conscious of certain dividing lines, for the most part we do not think majority of individuals passing by us each day. And yet, anyone who has ever suffered from any kind of racial or religious oppression is painfully apathetically in the background of persecution, persecute by passivity. If you are not for me, you are against me-a non-answer very clearly becomes an answer. So it is with Christ.
In fact, someone once told me that the opposite of Christ-likeness is not sinfulness like we might expect, but apathy. The idea is that the sinner is actually closer to the heart of Christ than the apathetic person. And I think this verified throughout the Gospel. In fact, Zacchaeus come to mind. Having climbed a tree so as to catch a glimpse of the One he heard was coming, the morally bankrupt, commercially prosperous tax collector came down from that tree at Christβs invitation, and his life took a dramatic turn. Called by name, Zacchaeus saw not only the life of Christ, but also the life that was to be found in Christ, to be in immeasurable contrast to his own. And what he saw compelled him to follow. In contrast, the apathetic stance of Pontius Pilate led him to ask flippantly, βWhat is truth?β as he ironically looked Truth Incarnate in the eyes. He saw nothing because he sought nothing. Seeking nothing out of fear or guilt or pride, the apathetic person becomes indifferent to life, such that truth becomes unrecognizable.
Is the greatest pursuit in your life to seek after what is true? Jesus has asked, βWho do you say I am?β (Mathew 16:15) Have you been apathetic about life? Christ invites, βTake my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.β (Mathew 11:29)
Indeed, He calls you by name.
How will you answer?
Written by R.H.Frost
Adapted from a column by Jill Carattini
Given to the Howdy.com website of the University of North Carolina -
Message 22
Posted by rhfrost (U2052013) on Wednesday, 14th September 2005
Together we live, divided we fall. Words so adherent for truth in a new generation. If God is with us, who can be against us. We are not God, but a creation of an eternal loving father. He gave us over 500 witnesses of his work in us. Look up Simon Greenleaf (one of the all time scholars of Harvard University).
There will always be people who will pull us apart through works of selfishness, jealousy, rage, and enmity. The good works of our eternal savior Jesus Christ is a free gift. Grace is free. Come to Jesus and learn of HIS love for HIS creation. -
Message 23
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Thursday, 15th September 2005
replying to 20
Gil
Thanks for clarifying. I was presuming WWII because of the context. However as you say we were able to do quite a lot in the Baltic in the earlier conflict.
I don't think it would work because the main threat was by land and I could see very little deterring Hitler other than Stalin going the other way. However its an interesting idea that I haven't seen before and one way Britain could have made a clear signal that it would support Poland. Possibly, before Hitler's victories, it might just have triggered a revolt against him.
Steve -
Message 24
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Wednesday, 21st September 2005
....or trespassers will be 'horse wipped' to within an inch of their lives,Trident :-$
-
Message 25
Posted by hallamhal (U2549864) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
mineould be this:
For Hitler to make peace, and then go off and have a jolly good cup of tea! -
Message 26
Posted by Spiletrosher (U1649090) on Wednesday, 8th February 2006
....or strangled himself to death by auto-erotic asphyxiation in 1928. Is that ludicrous enough??
-
Message 27
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 8th February 2006
When Hitler marched into the Rhine Land, kick him straight out. Everybody in Germany expected to happen. Then invade Germany with everything we and the French had. Failing that turn the Man U fans loose on him.
-
Message 28
Posted by wyn8126 (U2577714) on Wednesday, 8th February 2006
Germany does not transfer the focus of bombing in August/Sept 1940 from the airfields and supporting infrastructure to Londin.
The RAF then is worn down, Sea Lion takes place, England sues for peace. The war in the west is over and full concentration can be put on Russia....
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 Μύto 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
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ 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.