History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login


Forum LockedWW 2

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Abu Qasim View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
Post Options Post Options   Quote Abu Qasim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: WW 2
    Posted: 12-Jan-2006 at 12:22

Q:What would've been the outcome of WW 2 if Japan hadn't attacked at Pearl Harbor?  

 

 

Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jan-2006 at 13:21
The same: the USA would have attacked Japan even if Japan would have remained contained. 

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
aghart View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 05-Sep-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 232
Post Options Post Options   Quote aghart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jan-2006 at 15:02

For Great Britain it would have meant that  in 1942 more forces could have been sent to North Africa ( the 18th Division en-route to North Africa was diverted to Singapore and was lost) which would (I assume) mean that the campaign there could have been brought to a conclusion sooner.  Also the Indian,  Ghurka and African Forces that served in Burma could have been used in Italy and the  British Divisions in Burma & Italy brought home.  This would have freed up more British troops (especially infantry) for use in Normandy & North West Europe. The Australian & New Zealand forces withdrawn from North Africa to fight Japan might well have joined the Canadians in Normandy as well. What difference this would have made we can only assume,  but on the morning of D-day one of Montys staff officers said to him " I wish we had the 9th Australian Division with us today".  Also  all that tin & rubber in Malaya would not have been lost to the allied cause.

 

 



Edited by aghart
Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines
Back to Top
Abu Qasim View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
Post Options Post Options   Quote Abu Qasim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jan-2006 at 15:30

Originally posted by Maju

The same: the USA would have attacked Japan even if Japan would have remained contained. 

I kinda disagree. If you look at the polls during the months before Pearl Harbor, American opinion was at c. 60% or more against a direct involvement of US forces against any other opposing force(s). There wouldn't have been any excuse for US to go to war against Japan, and US couldn't declare war on Japan or her two allies just because.

Back to Top
warwolf1969 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 08-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 22
Post Options Post Options   Quote warwolf1969 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-May-2009 at 21:59

FDR knew the US had to get involved in the war in europe.  All Japan did was give him an easy excuse.  Eventually he would have used the same reason as WW1 the indescrimate U-boat war.  What most US people don't get was that the pacific was a sideshow compared to Europe.  The US military knew it could beat Japan at its leasure, the big priority was always Hitler and Germany.

Back to Top
Sun Tzu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 31-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 362
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sun Tzu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2009 at 00:40
Yea there really wasn't any real reason why the U.S. would declare war on Japan. What would have happened to the Manhattan project and the Atomic bombings? The Germans also would have had to face the U.S. marines, I think they called them devil dogs in ww1 after Bellau wood.
Sun Tzu

All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu
Back to Top
WolfHound85 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 02-Sep-2008
Location: USA and Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 36
Post Options Post Options   Quote WolfHound85 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2009 at 07:44
Yea America would have gotten involved in the European theater by 1944. 
College Student
Back to Top
Zaitsev View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 16-Oct-2006
Location: The Hill
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1008
Post Options Post Options   Quote Zaitsev Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2009 at 10:25
Firstly, I believe that Japan and the United States would inevitably have entered hostilities, regardless of the specific attack on Pearl Harbour.

Working on the assumption that Japan and the US did not engage in fighting, however, I believe that the outcome on the European Front was inevitable anyway. The US contribution in the European theatre, in terms of direct military action, was not particularly significant. They did help in drastically shortening the fighting, but the Allied forces were already gaining the upper hand prior to major US action. In addition, the Australian forces, primarily responsible for first halting both the German and Japanese land advances, would have been able to remain in Europe.

The Post-War period would have been a lot different, however. With a powerful Japanese Empire likely controlling large areas of China and South East Asia there would have been another world power to contest with and the Cold War period would likely have been very different.
Straw Man - a weak or sham argument
Back to Top
Sun Tzu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 31-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 362
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sun Tzu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-May-2009 at 01:55
Then u would have Red-Alert 3 lol.
Sun Tzu

All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu
Back to Top
copaloca View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2008
Location: Slovenia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 23
Post Options Post Options   Quote copaloca Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-May-2009 at 13:40
I also belive that America was ready for war and they would join sooner or later, even if Japan hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor.
Utinam barbari spatium proprium tuum invadant!

Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
Post Options Post Options   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-May-2009 at 20:07
Originally posted by Zaitsev


Working on the assumption that Japan and the US did not engage in fighting, however, I believe that the outcome on the European Front was inevitable anyway. The US contribution in the European theatre, in terms of direct military action, was not particularly significant. They did help in drastically shortening the fighting, but the Allied forces were already gaining the upper hand prior to major US action. In addition, the Australian forces, primarily responsible for first halting both the German and Japanese land advances, would have been able to remain in Europe.
 
I find that kind of hard to believe. It was the masses of U.S. bombers and escort fighters that virtually eliminated the Luftwaffe in early 1944 that made the Normandy invasion possible. And the while the Soviet Union was steadily driving back the Nazis it was doing so at a terrible cost of around 150,000 men a month throughout the war on top of the disasasters of 1941. The British army was leery thoughout the war of facing the Germans on anything approaching equal terms with good reason. It was the massive influx of men and material by the U.S. that made victory possible.
 
You should read John Mosiers book, "Cross of Iron".


Edited by DukeC - 15-May-2009 at 20:10
Back to Top
warwolf1969 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 08-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 22
Post Options Post Options   Quote warwolf1969 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-May-2009 at 22:48
By the time the US got involved in the war Germany was already on the defensive.  They had lost in both Russia, at Stalingrad, and africa, El Alamain.  The losses the german army suffered meant their defeat was inevitable.
Back to Top
Zaitsev View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 16-Oct-2006
Location: The Hill
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1008
Post Options Post Options   Quote Zaitsev Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-May-2009 at 02:11
Originally posted by DukeC

I find that kind of hard to believe. It was the masses of U.S. bombers and escort fighters that virtually eliminated the Luftwaffe in early 1944 that made the Normandy invasion possible.


I have to disagree. While the US bombers and fighters were helpful, the RAF was rapidly being rebuilt at that stage of the war as Hitler had re-directed the Luftwaffe to target civilian population centres. In addition, the constant RAF raids into German territory had severely hampered the German production capabilities. You also have to consider the fact that, with the Japanese not involved, Australia could have contributed much more significantly in the European theatre.

Undoubtedly the Normandy invasion would have occurred much later, if it was even in such a form. Germany had already lost the ability to invade Britain and was slowly losing its ability to continue air warfare. Meanwhile the British military would have been bolstered by ranks from Australia and would be rebuilding its air-force rapidly.

And the while the Soviet Union was steadily driving back the Nazis it was doing so at a terrible cost of around 150,000 men a month throughout the war on top of the disasasters of 1941.


While that does hurt, the Soviet Union was more than capable of sustaining these losses for some time. The Germans were not. It was inevitable that Russia would make strong headway into German territory. The Germans would either have to deal with a Russian invasion of Germany itself, or shift massive forces from the Western Front to counter-act the advance. In doing so it would reduce the strength of defences facing the (slightly weakened) Allies in France.

You also have to consider home-front problems in Germany. People were struggling, the army was recruiting inefficient conscripts, major production centres were destroyed, top generals were dying and inevitably someone would succeed in blowing up Hitler.

The British army was leery thoughout the war of facing the Germans on anything approaching equal terms with good reason. It was the massive influx of men and material by the U.S. that made victory possible.


While the US equipment was key to success, they were supplying this equipment long before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour and would continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The US men were not a significant influence on the eventual outcome in the European theatre, and were generally regarded as of inferior quality to other Allied troops.
Straw Man - a weak or sham argument
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
Post Options Post Options   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-May-2009 at 19:36
Originally posted by Zaitsev


I have to disagree. While the US bombers and fighters were helpful, the RAF was rapidly being rebuilt at that stage of the war as Hitler had re-directed the Luftwaffe to target civilian population centres. In addition, the constant RAF raids into German territory had severely hampered the German production capabilities. You also have to consider the fact that, with the Japanese not involved, Australia could have contributed much more significantly in the European theatre.
 
RAF bombers were active at night and tended to avoid combat with the Luftwaffe. It was the deep penetration raids by the USAAF with heavy fighter support that brought the Luftwaffe up to do combat then knocked it down. RAF fighters like the Spitfire were point defence weapons anyway and lacked the range to escort bombers into Germany from British bases. As for the damage done to Germany industry by the bombing campaign, it was barley effective. Military production actually went up under Albert Speer, and it wasn't until the Soviets overran the Romanian oil fileds that German industry and military began to suffer shortages. Australian troops are fine, their numbers however were limited by the small population of the country.
Undoubtedly the Normandy invasion would have occurred much later, if it was even in such a form. Germany had already lost the ability to invade Britain and was slowly losing its ability to continue air warfare. Meanwhile the British military would have been bolstered by ranks from Australia and would be rebuilding its air-force rapidly.
 
Churchill was more interested in operation in the Mediterranian and Scandanavia, it's debatable whether or not Overlord would have gone ahead without American pressure.


While that does hurt, the Soviet Union was more than capable of sustaining these losses for some time. The Germans were not. It was inevitable that Russia would make strong headway into German territory. The Germans would either have to deal with a Russian invasion of Germany itself, or shift massive forces from the Western Front to counter-act the advance. In doing so it would reduce the strength of defences facing the (slightly weakened) Allies in France.

You also have to consider home-front problems in Germany. People were struggling, the army was recruiting inefficient conscripts, major production centres were destroyed, top generals were dying and inevitably someone would succeed in blowing up Hitler.
 
 
Soviet personel losses were beginning to tell in 1943, it was the redployment of German forces to deal with allied offenses in the west that allowed the soviets to survive and advance against the Nazis.

Back to Top
morganzhang View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 08-Jun-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
Post Options Post Options   Quote morganzhang Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jun-2009 at 07:30
Originally posted by copaloca

I also belive that America was ready for war and they would join sooner or later, even if Japan hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor.
agree  Smile
imsubmarine@hotmail.com
Back to Top
Etnad View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 07-Jun-2009
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 36
Post Options Post Options   Quote Etnad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jun-2009 at 11:53
I don't believe that America had stayed neutral if the attack on Pearl Harbor hadn't happend.
America were already supporting the british and the sovjet with materials before they entered the war. I don't trust the polls from before they entered the war. I'm sure when they learned about the nazi-aggression in Europe they would be forced to enter.
And the Japanese aggression in the pacific would have been a pain in the ass for the americans if they didn't do anything about it.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.