DISCUSSIONS
- << previous
- 1
- 2
- next >>
warman45 said
and japan wasn't stupid. they had some of the most competent millitary and political advisors in the world, if they were planning to expand, and they believed the world would gang bang em if they became hostile to china, they would most probably steamroll russia.... again. as we'll, britain would surrender before being invaded by the US or germany (possibly giving up colonies to satisfy the US and germany (i can see germany getting malasia and all it's rubber and tin and the US getting Hong Kong or some other place in the pacific.) also, italy has a reputation of backing down from a fight, so they would probably surrender as well. russia would lose (that was really inevitable) and france would fall, most likely becoming a demiliterized zone, as there would be no possible way that germany could make money of an occupied france. and france may have gone fascist instead of germany (for the same reasons as germany became fascist)
the spanish civil war would probably have gone republican, and i can imagine spain and france being the new germany and italy, as well the ottomans would probably take ejypt.
When did Japan steamroll Russia? If you mean the Russo-Japanese war Japan humiliated Russia (because Russia was embarrassingly years behind all the other powerful countries) in the Russo-Japanese war but didn't steamroll them as the death toll for both sides were virtually the same. Also look at the Soviet-Japanese border wars where Russia comprehensively beat Japan. I disagree with competent military advisors and political advisors as it was just soldiers fanatical loyalty to the emperor what made them achieve their aims not incredibly clever tactics. If they had competent political advisors they would have made Japan limit their involvement in China until Japan had stocked up on enough supplies from the USA so they had a decent chance to become self sufficient from conquered territories and not to commit the atrocities they did in China. Their naval advisors were some of the best though. Russia is practically unconquerable and so vast I doubt Japan would get past Vladivostok.
As said in my previous post the British navy would put up a strong fight against the American navy and unless the Germans enact Plan Z in your scenario the German fleet would be defeated quickly which would lead to a showdown with the US and British navy. Even if the US won the naval battles their troops have to go an extremely long way across the Atlantic to transport the troops for an amphibious invasion and they wouldn't have air support until a long time after the initial invasion. The British would be waiting and huge casualties would be put on the Americans.
Fascism wouldn't come about either as Italy is conquered and Germany won WW1
I tore a path screaming through wind and blood, I will it all, burning deep, in my, skull
actually i hypothesised that fascism would begin in france as the situation would probably be similar to the situation in germany that brought about fascism. just because it isn't germany and italy doesn't mean it isn't fascism.
i did mean the russo-japanese war, and i may have over-embelished the japanese success.... on land at least. also, i hypothesized that because there would be no feasable way japan could attack china (because of the hypothetical mass support europe would give china) japan would be forced to build up a huge army with wich to attack russia, so as to avoid conflict with the rest of europe (wich hate communism and russia went commie so...)
i agree that america WOULD NOT invade britain, however britain may be forced to concede some areas to achieve a peace, wich it would probably do after the fall of france because they would be more pre-occupied with industrializing as apposed to fighting for a defeated nation (not much profit in it.) so basically i believed britain would opt for a cesation of hostilliteies with no major gains or losses on either side (like in most limited wars.)
finally i said the political and millitary advisors of japan were competent, i didn't say anything about them being moral correct. you can commit massacres and still be good at your job. (i am being some what self contradictory here so i will cede... you are most probably right about the army and political staff not being of the same calibre as those of other countries.... there navy was still the best though.)
also... i hypothesized that france might have aided the republicans in the spanish civil war, although it is entirely possible (assuming the debilitating situation in france led to a fascist government.)
- warman45
- location: Unknown
- joined: Aug 22, 2009
- posts: 288
warman45 said
actually i hypothesised that fascism would begin in france as the situation would probably be similar to the situation in germany that brought about fascism. just because it isn't germany and italy doesn't mean it isn't fascism.
i did mean the russo-japanese war, and i may have over-embelished the japanese success.... on land at least. also, i hypothesized that because there would be no feasable way japan could attack china (because of the hypothetical mass support europe would give china) japan would be forced to build up a huge army with wich to attack russia, so as to avoid conflict with the rest of europe (wich hate communism and russia went commie so...)
i agree that america WOULD NOT invade britain, however britain may be forced to concede some areas to achieve a peace, wich it would probably do after the fall of france because they would be more pre-occupied with industrializing as apposed to fighting for a defeated nation (not much profit in it.) so basically i believed britain would opt for a cesation of hostilliteies with no major gains or losses on either side (like in most limited wars.)
finally i said the political and millitary advisors of japan were competent, i didn't say anything about them being moral correct. you can commit massacres and still be good at your job. (i am being some what self contradictory here so i will cede... you are most probably right about the army and political staff not being of the same calibre as those of other countries.... there navy was still the best though.)
also... i hypothesized that france might have aided the republicans in the spanish civil war, although it is entirely possible (assuming the debilitating situation in france led to a fascist government.)
Ah.. I see your point of view for France being fascist now :P. It is also plausible of their intervention in Spain because of the closeness to each other. Britain would most likely do what you said there as well as being an island nation means it's harder to invade but easier to blockade. So I agree they would have agreed a peace and probably develop an isolationist policy. The Japanese navy was awesome but why they didn't have radar on their ships I will never know xD
Also I hope I didn't sound too serious and grumpy in my original post as I love you really :P
I tore a path screaming through wind and blood, I will it all, burning deep, in my, skull
love me.......? oooookkkkkk? ummmm....... well anyway about the radar....
the japanese had a very aggresive policy in regards to combat. they believed things like scouting, and defending, were for the weak. they therefore probably came to the conclusion that radar was for succers. they also believed they weren't succers.
- warman45
- location: Unknown
- joined: Aug 22, 2009
- posts: 288
warman45 said
love me.......? oooookkkkkk? ummmm....... well anyway about the radar....
the japanese had a very aggresive policy in regards to combat. they believed things like scouting, and defending, were for the weak. they therefore probably came to the conclusion that radar was for succers. they also believed they weren't succers.
Love you in a platonic way xD
You mean suckers as well :P. One of their major defeats at Midway came about because they didn't scout properly and sent out hardly any planes to scout for potential American threats. How that backfired on them
I tore a path screaming through wind and blood, I will it all, burning deep, in my, skull
ian241289 said
The British army had the biggest navy in the world at that time and would have triumphed over the American navy. The navy could have also forced through any bloackades
The German U-Boat packs had very nearly choked the UK's maritime traffic to a standstill. And that was WITH the aid and supplies coming from the US. Now imagine that instead of helping the UK, the US was working with the Germans to harm the UK everywhere possible. No vitally necessary supply convoys. No Lend Lease Act. Accelerated warship construction to boost the US fleet, at the same time that the UK's fleet is shrinking. NO ACCESS TO THE PANAMA CANAL..
Putting the US with the Axis/Central Powers against the UK would have collapsed the British Empire for sure.
"Until you know what is worth dying for, Life isn't worth living."
"Choose wisely"
- CaptainPatch
- MHII, MH
- location: United States
- joined: May 23, 2010
- posts: 1758
CaptainPatch said
ian241289 said
The British army had the biggest navy in the world at that time and would have triumphed over the American navy. The navy could have also forced through any bloackades
The German U-Boat packs had very nearly choked the UK's maritime traffic to a standstill. And that was WITH the aid and supplies coming from the US. Now imagine that instead of helping the UK, the US was working with the Germans to harm the UK everywhere possible. No vitally necessary supply convoys. No Lend Lease Act. Accelerated warship construction to boost the US fleet, at the same time that the UK's fleet is shrinking. NO ACCESS TO THE PANAMA CANAL..
Putting the US with the Axis/Central Powers against the UK would have collapsed the British Empire for sure.
This hypothetical scenario is in WW1 time scale isn't it? Or is it near the time of WW2? If it was WW1 the British would have easily triumphed over the American navy at that time. In a time near WW2 if there was a battle of both full strength navies it would be close but a war of attrition the UK would fail. I acknowledged that being an island would lead to the UK being forced into submission. What with the panama canal as well. If you mean the British fleet in the Pacific/Indian oceans they could go through the Suez Canal around Gibraltar and on to Britain. Britain wouldn't have been able to do offensive actions but could do limited defensive actions if completely blockaded. Look how long Germany held out in WW1 completely blockaded. But eventually Britain would fall to a blockade
I tore a path screaming through wind and blood, I will it all, burning deep, in my, skull
the time scale has us start in ww1 but hypothesis well up to the end of ww2. the main reason is you can't create a hypothetical ww2 without a good knowledge of ww1 as ww2 was basically decided by ww1. if ww1 was even a little different ww2 would be unrecognizable, the two are just far too linkked (especially since it was the defeats of ww1 that lead to the rise in extreme ideologies as political entities.)
- warman45
- location: Unknown
- joined: Aug 22, 2009
- posts: 288
warman45 said
the time scale has us start in ww1 but hypothesis well up to the end of ww2. the main reason is you can't create a hypothetical ww2 without a good knowledge of ww1 as ww2 was basically decided by ww1. if ww1 was even a little different ww2 would be unrecognizable, the two are just far too linkked (especially since it was the defeats of ww1 that lead to the rise in extreme ideologies as political entities.)
^^Good points^^.
"Until you know what is worth dying for, Life isn't worth living."
"Choose wisely"
- CaptainPatch
- MHII, MH
- location: United States
- joined: May 23, 2010
- posts: 1758
ian241289 said
If it was WW1 the British would have easily triumphed over the American navy at that time. In a time near WW2 if there was a battle of both full strength navies it would be close but a war of attrition the UK would fail. I acknowledged that being an island would lead to the UK being forced into submission. What with the panama canal as well. If you mean the British fleet in the Pacific/Indian oceans they could go through the Suez Canal around Gibraltar and on to Britain. Britain wouldn't have been able to do offensive actions but could do limited defensive actions if completely blockaded. Look how long Germany held out in WW1 completely blockaded. But eventually Britain would fall to a blockade.
[bold] As they in fact did for the bulk of their shipping. What I've always found amazing was HOW could that be a viable route with Italy, Sicily, and Tunisia creating a bottleneck? Heck, the Axis couldn't even shut Malta down! [shakes head]
HOWEVER, the viability of the route becomes seriously compromised if Germany retains its African colonies after WWI. If Germany had the forethought to build up a major naval base in German East Africa (modern Burundi, Rwanda and Tanganyika), it would have allowed for a major blockade at the mouth of the Red Sea, effectively strangling that route. Add a chunk of the US Pacific Fleet and any major British fleet operations get dicey (for both sides; even the winner would be left seriously mauled). Add the German Pacific colonies, and now operations North of Australia become compromised. (Remember what happened to the Repulse and Prince of Wales?)
With the Suez route cut, the UK must ship around Africa -- where it runs into whatever is operating out of German Southwest Africa (Namibia) and German West Africa (Nigeria/Cameroon).
When it was just the UK vs the Axis, the British Admiralty was hanging on by its fingernails. What held it up and eventually tipped the scales in the Brits favor was when the US entered the war(s). If the US enters either war on the other side, the British Empire comes crashing down.
"Until you know what is worth dying for, Life isn't worth living."
"Choose wisely"
- CaptainPatch
- MHII, MH
- location: United States
- joined: May 23, 2010
- posts: 1758
CaptainPatch said
ian241289 said
If it was WW1 the British would have easily triumphed over the American navy at that time. In a time near WW2 if there was a battle of both full strength navies it would be close but a war of attrition the UK would fail. I acknowledged that being an island would lead to the UK being forced into submission. What with the panama canal as well. If you mean the British fleet in the Pacific/Indian oceans they could go through the Suez Canal around Gibraltar and on to Britain. Britain wouldn't have been able to do offensive actions but could do limited defensive actions if completely blockaded. Look how long Germany held out in WW1 completely blockaded. But eventually Britain would fall to a blockade.
[bold] As they in fact did for the bulk of their shipping. What I've always found amazing was HOW could that be a viable route with Italy, Sicily, and Tunisia creating a bottleneck? Heck, the Axis couldn't even shut Malta down! [shakes head]
HOWEVER, the viability of the route becomes seriously compromised if Germany retains its African colonies after WWI. If Germany had the forethought to build up a major naval base in German East Africa (modern Burundi, Rwanda and Tanganyika), it would have allowed for a major blockade at the mouth of the Red Sea, effectively strangling that route. Add a chunk of the US Pacific Fleet and any major British fleet operations get dicey (for both sides; even the winner would be left seriously mauled). Add the German Pacific colonies, and now operations North of Australia become compromised. (Remember what happened to the Repulse and Prince of Wales?)
With the Suez route cut, the UK must ship around Africa -- where it runs into whatever is operating out of German Southwest Africa (Namibia) and German West Africa (Nigeria/Cameroon).
When it was just the UK vs the Axis, the British Admiralty was hanging on by its fingernails. What held it up and eventually tipped the scales in the Brits favor was when the US entered the war(s). If the US enters either war on the other side, the British Empire comes crashing down.
True :P. It's messed up how close Germany came to winning WW2 and how Hitler bravely snatched defeat from the jaws of victory xD
I think the Royal Navy was never seriously bothered by Germany. There were two big scares with the Battle of Jutland and when the Bismark was sighted but in both world wars the first major combat between the two countries was the last major combat (not including U-boats of course). British merchant shipping however was seriously affected. The only reason it wasn't completely defeated was because in both world wars there was never enough U-boats at the start and then Germany was playing catch up to keep enough of the merchant shipping from reaching Britian versus the allied advances in ASW. (Found an interesting fact the other day that in WW2 a third of the world's merchant navy was British)
The problem with this thread is it's bloody confusing what the time scale is lmao
Another scenario which would be interesting is if Britain held onto the thirteen colonies and the western expansion and everything with the US still happened. Imagine the power of the British empire in WW1-WW2 if it was still in full control of it's empire including the USA which would be a superpower within a superpower xD
I tore a path screaming through wind and blood, I will it all, burning deep, in my, skull
ian241289 said
The problem with this thread is it's bloody confusing what the time scale is lmao
OK lets say all of this begins in 1918, so as I said before, Germany conquers France and Italy, along with Russia(which would be split, as communists would never take control and it would be in civil war after the schlieffen plan was executed) so Germany now =Europe(besides Austro-Hungary) and the Ottoman empire seizes the suez canal zone, and egypt. USA will not supply britain, but instead Germany, and I wonder if GB had a large enough navy to blockade the whole of Europe and Russia and defend their colonies and resist the entire US fleet without access to the panama canal. So it would end up eventually with maybe even Germany taking GB in a joint effort with USA along the line, as they would have massive naval production capabilities compared to the Brits.
In order to know how to use free will, we must first know how to fight for it.
beast566 said
ian241289 said
The problem with this thread is it's bloody confusing what the time scale is lmao
OK lets say all of this begins in 1918, so as I said before, Germany conquers France and Italy, along with Russia(which would be split, as communists would never take control and it would be in civil war after the Schlieffen plan was executed) so Germany now = Europe(besides Austria-Hungary) and the Ottoman empire seizes the Suez canal zone, and Egypt. USA will not supply Britain, but instead Germany, and I wonder if GB had a large enough navy to blockade the whole of Europe and Russia and defend their colonies and resist the entire US fleet without access to the panama canal. So it would end up eventually with maybe even Germany taking GB in a joint effort with USA along the line, as they would have massive naval production capabilities compared to the Brits.
If you look up the Brest-Litovsk that's what the Germans were happy to have of Russia and this was the peace treaty between communist Russia and Germany so the rest of Russia would be communist. Now say the Schlieffen plan worked it only wanted to take Belgium and knock out France so Germany has control over mainland Europe. There was no plan for Germany to invade the UK and they probably never would have with the exorbitant loss of life it would cause (seeing as how the German navy refused to come out of the ports after Battle of Jutland). There was still the problem of Italy for Germany as well. Austria-Hungary would have split because there was no way they could keep all the countries wanting independence under order. They were already incredibly weak at the start of WW1 (shown by how little they achieved). The Ottoman empire was also crumbling and was known as the sick man of Europe for a reason. I doubt Germany would have been able to intervene in Egypt either as Italy had yet to be defeated and it was a stalemate in the Alps.
Scandinavia was under no trouble of being invaded so the UK would have to blockade is German ports west of Denmark (also not in German plans for invasion), the strait between Norway/Sweden and Denmark, Belgium ports and French ports. The UK was already managing most of this (minus French ports of course) in WW1 while carrying operations in the Atlantic and Mediterranean. Also the UK would also still have Gibraltar so the Mediterranean was also blocked. So Germany is blocked if this happens. They wouldn't have to blockade anywhere near as much as you are making out For America to get supplies to Germany they would have to have to defeat to Royal Navy (which was bigger) or go through the Pacific round South East Asia India then through the Ottoman Empire or Austria-Hungary with internal conflicts happening in these countries. With the ports blockaded German navy is nullified and U-boat action would be limited. For America to have to go across the Atlantic to fight the Royal Navy then go all the way back for supplies, repairs etc. This would suit the Royal Navy who also has home advantage. If they abandoned protecting their colonies with their naval power and brought all their naval power back to defend the UK that's something to think about for any would be navy attacking. Look at what happened to Germany when they had an arms race with the UK in naval power. Germany was bankrupting itself just trying to equal their navy while all the time the UK was producing more then Germany in ships while still having all their old ships. They just couldn't equal the UK in naval power.
The UK with America blocking supplies would be in the same situation as Germany then and it would be whoever can last longest (probably Germany with most of mainland Europe in their control) The UK would seek peace but I can't see neither America or Germany successfully invading Britain but rather have the UK sue for peace.
I mean for America to invade the UK it requires travelling all the way across the Atlantic if invading directly with constant harassment from the Royal Navy from Iceland, the Faroe Island's, Scalpa Flow, Portsmouth and Gibraltar. Then either going around Ireland to the South or to Scotland and both these areas are ideal for defending against an amphibious invasion. The most chance of success would be dropping the American troops off in German controlled territory then crossing the English channel from France (like a reverse D-day) and these transports and troops would have to get through a blockade then back through the same blockade again and only then to fight against an enemy on home territory. Plus the Americans were completely new to fighting a war. After 4 years of heavy casualties I doubt Germany could have launched another invasion of Britain. It had to recover first. So America would be doing it alone.
I realise I have wrote a huge wall of text as well xD
I tore a path screaming through wind and blood, I will it all, burning deep, in my, skull
ian241289 said (Seeing as how the German navy refused to come out of the ports after Battle of Jutland).
^^THIS^^ happens to be the key to the whole What-If scenario. The reason the High Seas Fleet never re-emerges is because if the UK can concentrate to meet what's left of the HSF, the HSF will simply be dealt another bloody nose (or worse). But that is the case ONLY if the British Admiralty does not have to deal with any other major distractions -- like, for instance the US having joined with the Central Powers. Suddenly, the Admiralty's limited (though large) resources get stretched to the breaking point, and a Second Battle of Jutland could very easily swing in the Germans' favor.
Then at the end of WWI, instead of ending up on the sea bed of Scapa Flow, it serves as the nucleus to a MUCH bigger German Navy -- one that is not limited to just a few "pocket battleships", and also has additional Atlantic ports in what had once been Belgium.
In the British-favorable Reality, the British Navy is BIG, but given how much ground needs to be covered, it's spread VERY thin, almost to breaking. Nudge in a negative direction just a little -- where US allied with Germany = a LOT -- and the whole thing falls down like a house of cards.
"Until you know what is worth dying for, Life isn't worth living."
"Choose wisely"
- CaptainPatch
- MHII, MH
- location: United States
- joined: May 23, 2010
- posts: 1758
first off, if germany was smart, and (i doubt america would join ww1 on any side but it may supply one side like it did with britain in early ww2.)
ok so assuming a pro germany USA, and a smart germany, they may try to have america sell goods to spain, and then have germany buy the spanish goods. america did something similar in 1939 when it gave goods to canada and had canada ship them to britain. just a thought.
germany actually sank more ships in jutland than britain, the german navy just didn't like the idea of having all their big ships sink. (i think they were compensating for something.)(jk)
- warman45
- location: Unknown
- joined: Aug 22, 2009
- posts: 288
warman45 said
first off, if germany was smart, and (i doubt america would join ww1 on any side but it may supply one side like it did with britain in early ww2.)
ok so assuming a pro germany USA, and a smart germany, they may try to have america sell goods to spain, and then have germany buy the spanish goods. america did something similar in 1939 when it gave goods to canada and had canada ship them to britain. just a thought.
germany actually sank more ships in jutland than britain, the german navy just didn't like the idea of having all their big ships sink. (i think they were compensating for something.)(jk)
At the battle of Jutland the British did lose more but as a percentage of the navy Germany lost more. It came down to the UK being able to replace their losses while Germany couldn't
I tore a path screaming through wind and blood, I will it all, burning deep, in my, skull
CaptainPatch said
ian241289 said (Seeing as how the German navy refused to come out of the ports after Battle of Jutland).
^^THIS^^ happens to be the key to the whole What-If scenario. The reason the High Seas Fleet never re-emerges is because if the UK can concentrate to meet what's left of the HSF, the HSF will simply be dealt another bloody nose (or worse). But that is the case ONLY if the British Admiralty does not have to deal with any other major distractions -- like, for instance the US having joined with the Central Powers. Suddenly, the Admiralty's limited (though large) resources get stretched to the breaking point, and a Second Battle of Jutland could very easily swing in the Germans' favor.
Then at the end of WWI, instead of ending up on the sea bed of Scapa Flow, it serves as the nucleus to a MUCH bigger German Navy -- one that is not limited to just a few "pocket battleships", and also has additional Atlantic ports in what had once been Belgium.
In the British-favorable Reality, the British Navy is BIG, but given how much ground needs to be covered, it's spread VERY thin, almost to breaking. Nudge in a negative direction just a little -- where US allied with Germany = a LOT -- and the whole thing falls down like a house of cards.
I would obviously choose the British favourable reality :P. I probably also underestimate the USA fleet during WW1. I apologise to all the Americans on this forum if I have ; ] (most of the people on this forum xD)
I tore a path screaming through wind and blood, I will it all, burning deep, in my, skull
warman45 said
first off, if germany was smart, and (i doubt america would join ww1 on any side but it may supply one side like it did with britain in early ww2.)
ok so assuming a pro germany USA, and a smart germany, they may try to have america sell goods to spain, and then have germany buy the spanish goods. america did something similar in 1939 when it gave goods to canada and had canada ship them to britain. just a thought.
[Deliberately obscured trivia?] I grew up in Racine, Wisconsin, which was an industry-heavy city in the Midwest. One of the larger production plants was the Young Radiator Company, which as the name implies, mainly manufactured radiators, mostly for trucks. For anyone that worked at the plant for more than 20 years, it was common knowledge that the way Old Man Young got RICH was by selling nearly ALL of the radiators that went into the Afrika Korps trucks. (One assumed other, non-AK trucks as well.)
So, apparently supplying the Axis wasn't necessarily all that secretive.
Anyway, prior to Pearl Harbor, there was a LOT of Americans that favored supporting Germany. [ http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100126112629AApNrEU ] But the people at the top of the US government did not. (Mainly because most Nazi rhetoric was anti-FDR and anti- New Deal.) But once Pearl Harbor occurred -- something that may well have been the result of FDR manipulation -- to openly support the Axis was to be viewed as unAmerican, and could result in Bad Things happening to whoever was making those "unAmerican" remarks.
"Until you know what is worth dying for, Life isn't worth living."
"Choose wisely"
- CaptainPatch
- MHII, MH
- location: United States
- joined: May 23, 2010
- posts: 1758
man i wish i could make it rich selling people stuff. =( (jk)
- warman45
- location: Unknown
- joined: Aug 22, 2009
- posts: 288
- << previous
- 1
- 2
- next >>
