Nazis make peace with UK, what then?

[Viking]

Originally posted by B@tfinkV
above all things this is where America has held the most perfect grade card in world standings. a huge empire that rivals europe easily in size all governed by one master, and happy with it, with relatively few civil wars to worry about. and to keep it from the boredom i mention you have different states the size of our countries so you can all be different and ok with it.

you guys have created your country from the ground up and it has grown to epic proportions.

we ask 'what ifs' about hitler and its all fun and games to let the mind wander.

maybe we should even be considering what will the great GWB do next?

I think questions/argument on GWB should be in a separate thread. That said: I think you're asking the wrong question. What GWB will do next is to retire from mainstream politics. The real question is who will be the next US President, and what will he/she do next?

[Angus]

Originally posted by Excel1
imo its all conjecture way up there in the ether with martian invasions as britain never would have bent over for hitler. he was an arrogant deluded mad man and his insane desire for a neutered bulldog to pat on the head and play fetch with just reinforces that. sorry, but i cant take anything the mad ****er said seriously

Well, thank God that they didn't. Hence my "IF"
However, one can imagine that it was a tempting thought for many a politician. Here are some grains:

- British peace-movements actually had pushed through some disarmings shortly before the war, - while Hitler was mobilizing.
- PM could have been Halifax instead of Churchill, - that was a possibility.
- There was some unrest in the Royal Family, and a German plot in that business.
- Britain had just suffered a crushing defeat on the European mainland
- Britain's position in economy and raw materials was getting ugly.
- Axis had a big trade with the USSR
- USA wanted to stay away.
- Many U.S. Persons of influence expressed the opinion in the open that Britain was bound to loose the war, so stepping down would be a better option.

That was  just some bits of the atmosphere. However, of course it's an "IF" question. It didn't happen, but what IF

[lazs2]

angus... I am saying that to ignore japan as a "variable" in WWII is like the climate scientists who ignore or don't know about a lot of the variables that make up their climate model computers..  

That is why they have to constantly modify their findings..

to ignore japan means you ignore a whole set of variables..  any change in direction with japan has a huge ripple effect that you can't predict.   What would we do if japan did not go to war with us?  if they retreated back to their island and were happy with their situation?  What if they didn't and didn't have germany's help?  what if.. what if... what if... ad nauseum.

Like I said.. alternate history is fun but only as a fictional tool for a book or series of books

Harry Turtledove does it better than you guys.

lazs

[B@tfinkV]

Originally posted by Viking
I think questions/argument on GWB should be in a separate thread. That said: I think you're asking the wrong question. What GWB will do next is to retire from mainstream politics. The real question is who will be the next US President, and what will he/she do next?

a good point!

[Angus]

Lazs:
"to ignore japan means you ignore a whole set of variables.. any change in direction with japan has a huge ripple effect that you can't predict. What would we do if japan did not go to war with us? if they retreated back to their island and were happy with their situation? What if they didn't and didn't have germany's help? what if.. what if... what if... ad nauseum."

Ignoring, - no. I listed them as a part of the possible big-blocks.
Japan would have gone on with the conquest of the SE Asian area had they posessed the material for it IMHO. That includes parts of the USSR.
They made war with the USA and the UK exactly because they did not accept the idea of "retreating to their island".
Their plan was to cripple the US naval power for some time, and by conquest get the British out. Thereby, Japan would have owned resources in such a scale that the US could not easily have bent them. Grab, then meake peace, - much  like Hitler was thinking of in 1940.
Bear in mind, that the "what if" there was not far from the mind of many a thinker in the US. "What if the British loose in Europe?" This Position is more than a year before Pearl Harbour!
I have to dig in the books to see the dates of desicions, but with the Brits out of the game, and then with the US embargo rather ineffective, there was no reason for Japan to try their luck with the USA.
But they were forced down to 2 simple desicions. Abandon the Chinese campaign, or make war with the British and the USA.
Since the British were in the way, and already in trouble, the bigger desicion was with the USA. So there was the chance of getting luck with a K.O....

Nauseum? why? Too much thinking?
And here:
"Like I said.. alternate history is fun but only as a fictional tool for a book or series of books"

Fun, yes I agree. But I think it is also one big tool to teach us that we can possibly learn from History. It is a challenge for drawing conclusions from data brought afterwards, with lots of information and scrutiny not avalable at the time. "Fun" from comparing what we now know to the 2 other factors, what people thought and planned at the time, and what actually happened.
So, I'd say that Alternate history is a tool to learn about what is yet to happen as well....

Anyway, Lazs, are you well in on the Pacific war? I alwaysthink that our Russky friends completely underestimate the vast warfare that was going on there. So, to emphasize what I said before, I do not ignore Japan as a fprce, just play with the position and alternatives. But IMHO our Russian friends seem to "discard" the weight that the UK and USA put on the scale. It is as if WW2 was the eastern front only, while the rest was some engagements and mistakes. Pisses me off....

[B@tfinkV]

you might have a fair point Angus, but why let it get to you?

the Insurgents at present in Iraq will remember the Battle of Iraq, they wont maybe recognise the global 'war on terror' becuase their lives are firmly sheltered by their own conflicts.

why should you care if the russians become self absorbed with their own battles and victories? The brits always remember the BoB, USA always remembers D-Day. The French always remebr the Gauls. or whenever they last won.


why does it bother you so?

[MajIssue]

Originally posted by Angus

I think you are right. I only disagree with " If Germany still fails to capture Moscow they would most likely still lose the war, even without British and American (direct) involvement"....that.
For there were 3 major points in the eastern war, all lost to the Axis by rather a margin. Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk. The turnpoint being normally named STALINGRAD. I think that with the western allies and the following attrition from their behalf replaced with an eastern foe as well as trade supply and transport would easily have overweighted those margins.

Maybe just me....

Good points Angus, but if Barbarossa had kicked off when scheduled the Whermact would have had better weather and wouldn't have had the winter logistics issues to deal with until after Moscow was theirs. The biggest blunder after the month long delay of Barbarossa was the OKW's (Hitler's) decision to divert some Army Group Center (objective Moscow)units (divisions) to Army Group South (who's objective was Stalingrad). This decision was necessitated again by the late "kick off". Additionally if the Invasion was started on schedule the seige of Leningrad by Army Group North would have likely been concluded before the onset of winter. In conclusion if Hitler Hadn't had to recue Moussolini's chesnuts from the fire in the Balkins thus  preventing Barbarossa from starting on schedule and with a reduced order of battle, the whole eastern offensive would have had a different outcome.

What If Barbarossa had been launched as planned and scheduled? No Leningrad Seige, Moscow falls and Stalingrad is never a factor... Stalin should have awarded Moussolini The "Hero of the Soviet Union".

[MiloMorai]

The Balkans side trip didn't make any difference since there was a wet spring and the ground was too wet to have Barbarossa kick off on time.

[lazs2]

I can see no case where the US would not have gone to war with japan and no way that japan would not have lost.

lazs

[Angus]

Originally posted by B@tfinkV
you might have a fair point Angus, but why let it get to you?

the Insurgents at present in Iraq will remember the Battle of Iraq, they wont maybe recognise the global 'war on terror' becuase their lives are firmly sheltered by their own conflicts.

why should you care if the russians become self absorbed with their own battles and victories? The brits always remember the BoB, USA always remembers D-Day. The French always remebr the Gauls. or whenever they last won.


why does it bother you so?

Very good point, and a healthy question!

It bothers me to see mankind constantly proving one thesis, - "The only thing you learn from history is that you DON'T learn from history"

IMHO, a good study of history, included with "what-if's" and a broader perspective (culture, timeframe, setups etc...) will give "lessons from history". The "What-If's" looked at with some knowledge, will encourage people to "go digging". And interesting setups will possibly turn students from dozing in their classrooms into having hot debates and fast learning from their own initiatives and thoughts.

It bothers me so, when millions of people have died and turned to "history", only to be repeating a tragic history, then forgetting and denial kicks in, and then we have voices that say "why  does it bother you so".....

P.S. Lasz...hehe will be back

[B@tfinkV]

good answer indeed. i was just wondering why, not saying you are wrong for it bothering you.

[Angus]

Batfink, if you want to read up on these "if's", they're really all over the books. And there are may traps for you if youjust dip your toe in.
So be warned, - the subject is massive, and highly addictive! Yes, - I am trying to infect you all!
Well, - really, if you are a reader with some aero-related interest, I would have some recommedations for you to read/buy, - and very many of others here on the board.

[Excel1]

Originally posted by Angus
Well, thank God that they didn't. Hence my "IF"
However, one can imagine that it was a tempting thought for many a politician. Here are some grains:

- British peace-movements actually had pushed through some disarmings shortly before the war, - while Hitler was mobilizing.
- PM could have been Halifax instead of Churchill, - that was a possibility.
- There was some unrest in the Royal Family, and a German plot in that business.
- Britain had just suffered a crushing defeat on the European mainland
- Britain's position in economy and raw materials was getting ugly.
- Axis had a big trade with the USSR
- USA wanted to stay away.
- Many U.S. Persons of influence expressed the opinion in the open that Britain was bound to loose the war, so stepping down would be a better option.

That was  just some bits of the atmosphere. However, of course it's an "IF" question. It didn't happen, but what IF

 
I get ya.

those were bleak days for britain and as remote as the chance may be.. no harm in a "if"

just out of interest, the new zealand government had concerns and doubts over the pre-war week kneed way chamberlain's government had handled hitler. but once war was declared and the politics was shoved out of the way there was never any question as to britain's resolve in handling any situation thrown at it, either by prevailing, or if the worst came to the worst, going down fighting. of course churchill's inspiration was a big bonus when he became prime minister but when war was declared the nz prime minister summed up the general feeling amoungst new zealanders at the time pretty well

 

Both with gratitude for the past, and with confidence in the future, we range ourselves without fear beside Britain. Where she goes, we go, where she stands, we stand. We are only a small and young nation, but we are one and all a band of brothers, and we march forward with a union of hearts and wills to a common destiny.’

[Angus]

The commonwealth forces must not be forgotten, for those were many hardened people with incredible performance.
Al Deere,Evan "Rosie" Mackie from NZ, and all the Australians, S-Africans, Canadians, etc etc, as well as those from already conquered nations like Polish, Czech, Norway....
There was spirit indeed, and those may have been a crucial weight in both British resolve as well as performance.
The "IF" remains partially because of those. WW2 wasn't just the USSR in a land war and USA jumping in and saving the day.

Lovely "if"