Alternate WWII?

[dpapp2]

What is the effect of no US involvement in the war? No Torch to liberate North Africa, the invasion of Sicily won't happen either. RAF strategic bombing campaign remains limited in scope and geography without airbases in the Mediterranean. Italy stays in the war with full production of decent airplanes augmenting German production, and keeps the UK engaged in Libya.

 

US Lend-lease deliveries would be most probably reduced from historical, limiting USSR offensive capability. Luftwaffe would be a bit more powerful, and von Paulus won't get encircled at Stalingrad. By 1943, Germany gets the Caucasus oilfields into production, while the USSR faces severe fuel shortage With Kiev, Stalingrad, Baku and Leningrad captured the USSR seeks terms with Germany late 1943, before the USA concludes the war with Japan.

[Ken Estes]

Not so, Ribbentrop said: "Should Japan become engaged in a war against the United States Germany, of course, would join the war immediately."

Yes, but such conversations cannot be characterized as a plan. That's all I am saying. Nor was there a formal Ger-JA treaty until after the declarations of war had taken place, albeit with the vaguest of terms.

[glenn239]

The moment Germany declares war on Japan and a single KM ship moves into the Atlantic to rendesvous with the US fleet, the chances of Britain receiving American support versus Germany would drop to zero.

 

German ships attempting to do this would be sunk on sight by USN warships. Churchill would declare war on Japan, and ask the United States to declare war on Germany in return.

[Assessor]

The moment Germany declares war on Japan and a single KM ship moves into the Atlantic to rendesvous with the US fleet, the chances of Britain receiving American support versus Germany would drop to zero.

 

German ships attempting to do this would be sunk on sight by USN warships. Churchill would declare war on Japan, and ask the United States to declare war on Germany in return.

 

 

Why? If Germany has declared war on Japan, and has been assiduously maintains its neutrality wrt to the US, and (although I didn't say it in so many words), the US has been "deeply humbled by the immediate and unswerving support of the German people" or some such form of words, why would they suddenly attack a putative ally? What rationale COULD Churchill give, other than "we've been fighting them for years"? US pragmatism and a wish not to be embroiled in a European war, along with the distinct anti-British feeling in some US circles would count very heavily, I fear, had such a thing happened. All I can say is thank God it didn't.

 

Quoting Ken Estes:

"Yes, but such conversations cannot be characterized as a plan. That's all I am saying. Nor was there a formal Ger-JA treaty until after the declarations of war had taken place, albeit with the vaguest of terms."

 

Even a treaty would not necessarily mean that Hitler would not renege: just think of Barbarossa. Hitler's habit of making policies "on the hoof" cannot fully be discounted.

[Marek Tucan]

US pragmatism and a wish not to be embroiled in a European war, along with the distinct anti-British feeling in some US circles would count very heavily, I fear, had such a thing happened.

 

Won't US pragmaticm tell them that Royal Navy and armies under British control in India, Burma plus dominions like Oz and NZ would be handier against Japan than whatever the Kriegsmarine can slip through British blockade?

[Assessor]

Won't US pragmaticm tell them that Royal Navy and armies under British control in India, Burma plus dominions like Oz and NZ would be handier against Japan than whatever the Kriegsmarine can slip through British blockade?

 

Alternatively, pragmatism might encourage the US to bang both of the "allies" heads together, and join in the Pax America? How much would Joe Kennedy have loved THAT!

[Xavier]

Alternatively, pragmatism might encourage the US to bang both of the "allies" heads together, and join in the Pax America? How much would Joe Kennedy have loved THAT!

If ze Germans would have been smart, they could propose themselves to make peace with the commonwealth and condemn the attack on Pearl Harbor and fight the Asiatic hordes(USSR included) with the combined power of the Anglo-Aryan forces or something like that, might not have worked out but could keep the US out of Europe for some crucial months/years

[Marek Tucan]

Given the lack of any real potential to fight the Japanese, I can see at best Roosevelt pushing Churchill to "Japan first" strategy.

[DesertFox]

Curious, if Germany had not attacked Russia / USSR, when would Stalin have attacked Hitler? Opinions?

[glenn239]

Why? If Germany has declared war on Japan….

If the United States permits German cooperation, then they’ve essentially sided with Germany against the British Empire – impossible.

 

Look at it this way. What if Iran had declared war on Iraq on January 18th, 1991 and then invaded, driving for Bagdad?

 

Curious, if Germany had not attacked Russia / USSR, when would Stalin have attacked Hitler? Opinions?

 

If Hitler takes his pills in 1940/41, then Stalin does not attack him. Stalin had more to gain from seeing Germany, Japan and the USA kill each other than he did in doing the heavy lifting himself. (After all, if Germany and Japan started to lose, he could always jump into the war at that point).

[Marek Tucan]

Curious, if Germany had not attacked Russia / USSR, when would Stalin have attacked Hitler? Opinions?

 

The moment Western Allies have landed in Europe mainland and are pushing their way towards Germany?

 

Similar for Japan and Manchuria/Korea.

 

Now... What would happen if in such a situation German generals couped against Hitler and offered USA+UK a common front against Soviets?

[JWB]

Bill, your entire "cogent, properly thought out argument supported with evidence" is founded on nothing but your opinion. It was nothing but a long winded diatribe about how right you think you are, and how publicly offended you could appear to be

This is because the study of history is little better than ex post facto journalism and just as reliant upon dim memories, rumor and gossip as the modern variety. Legitimate study requires visual recordings (film or video) and/or scientific archeological forensic examinations. When was the last time BillB went out on a dig?

Edited December 14, 2007 by JWB

[BillB]

Bill, your entire "cogent, properly thought out argument supported with evidence", reproduced below, is founded on nothing but your opinion. It was nothing but a long winded diatribe about how right you think you are, and how publicly offended you could appear to be:

 

Yup, personal opinion just like your unsupported assertions that started this exchange, which you keep conveniently forgetting to go back to. The key difference you have also conveniently missed is that mine is the *informed* personal opinion basded on a decade of actually working in the profession and environment under discussion, whereas yours is the *uninformed* opinion based on not a lot at all so far. As for the bit about me being offended, you persist in looking at it that way if you really need the comdfort of such pathetically transparent camouflage to hide your inability to engage and argue your case in a similar manner

 

Let's look at the authorities in the above ("I", "my", and "M" as in "my" all referring to yourself, Bill B ):

 

"by my reckoning"

 

"I have come across"

 

"IMO"

 

"I frequently came across"

 

"I was always being told"

 

"I used to do"

 

"IIRC"

 

So, you set out to demolish my "sweeping and inaccurate statements", based on my "extremely partial and unsupported personal opinioon" [sic], and your entire foundation is The Word ex officio yourself.

 

I have demolished it Tony, as demonstrated that the best comeback you can come up with (again) is a bit more schoolyard childishness in the shape of a list of cut and paste phrases. How about addressing the point at issue instead of dancing about trying to deflect the discussion away from the main point onto peripheral nonsense that will allow you to continue pretending that you actually *have* a point?

 

You see, Bill, you accuse me of relying on my self-assumed infalibility, then you declare yourself the winna an' still champeen on the strength of that very dodge. As for name calling, well, I ain't begun to call you names, Bill, despite what you claim. I haven't had to. You're just too good at naming yourself for me to compete.

Of course I am. Now we've got that out of the way, how about you get back to focussing on the point of this discussion and actually addressing my points instead of playing at semantics, and mebbe come up with some actual evidence to support your original assertions. The fact is that you cannot, which is why you are so obviously wriggling and squirming to avoid admitting the fact. Which is really quite pathetic.

 

BillB

[BillB]

This is because the study of history is little better than ex post facto journalism and just as reliant upon dim memories, rumor and gossip as the modern variety. Legitimate study requires visual recordings (film or video) and/or scientific archeological forensic examinations. When was the last time BillB went out on a dig?

When was the last time you dug a slit trench, commanded an infantry section or qualified on section and platoon weapons? When was the last time any of your work was purchased by the libraries at VMA or West Point? In fact, when was the last time you made a comment on this Grate Sight worthy of the bandwidth it consumed?

 

The study of history may well be all those things, but it nonetheless remains something that remains provenly far beyond your mental faculties.

 

BillB

[DB]

It's nearly time to post the link to "History Today" again, methinks

[Guest aevans]

Yup, personal opinion just like your unsupported assertions that started this exchange, which you keep conveniently forgetting to go back to. The key difference you have also conveniently missed is that mine is the *informed* personal opinion basded on a decade of actually working in the profession and environment under discussion, whereas yours is the *uninformed* opinion based on not a lot at all so far.

 

Really? What value would you place on my informed personal opinion about the Marine Corps, if it was in defense of what you perceived as an institutional failing? The first words out of your mouth would be something along the lines of, "Of course he would say that -- can't muck up the Old School Tie, even if the headmaster is a pedophile." IOW, why should anyone give your opinion about you profession, informed or otherwise, the weight beyond what it is -- anecdotal and personal? Seems that at the very best, Bill, you and I are on the same level of veracity in this dispute: I expressed a personal opinion based on my experience, you expressed a countering one, based on yours.

 

That's all there is to it.

 

As for the bit about me being offended, you persist in looking at it that way if you really need the comdfort of such pathetically transparent camouflage to hide your inability to engage and argue your case in a similar manner

 

If I argued my case in "a similar manner", I would likewise engage in anecdote and personal prejudice. But since that's not what I'm about -- rather that I'm just pointing out that the academic profession behaves like any other in protecting its prerogatives, with you yourself providing quite a few very good examples of the immature vehemence with which it does so -- I see no need to engage in such folly.

Edited December 14, 2007 by aevans

[Assessor]

When was the last time you dug a slit trench, commanded an infantry section or qualified on section and platoon weapons? When was the last time any of your work was purchased by the libraries at VMA or West Point? In fact, when was the last time you made a comment on this Grate Sight worthy of the bandwidth it consumed?

 

The study of history may well be all those things, but it nonetheless remains something that remains provenly far beyond your mental faculties.

 

BillB

 

 

Tony and Bill,

 

whilst I like a good, standup fight with plenty of gouging as much as the next man, can I respectfully ask you start a separate threat to continue this one?

[Guest aevans]

When was the last time you dug a slit trench, commanded an infantry section or qualified on section and platoon weapons?

 

What does that have to do with the study of history?

 

The study of history may well be all those things, but it nonetheless remains something that remains provenly far beyond your mental faculties.

 

Funny, my high scool and college history teachers were all pretty much of the opinion that history was not beyond the faculties of a person of average intelligence. But since you are BillB, we can safely assume that they were all wet, huh?

[Rich]

It's nearly time to post the link to "History Today" again, methinks

 

No, maybe it's time we posted a link at "History Today" to us.

[Conall]

This is because the study of history is little better than ex post facto journalism and just as reliant upon dim memories, rumor and gossip as the modern variety. Legitimate study requires visual recordings (film or video) and/or scientific archeological forensic examinations. When was the last time BillB went out on a dig?

 

In a cornucopia of stupidity with which you've sullied this 'Grate Sight'[TM] this is the most arrant nonsense you've spouted yet.

 

Let me try to explain this to you (again) very slowly, using words with as few syllables as possible so as not to over-tax your manifestly limited intellect. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin.

 

History is about studying documentation contemporary to the events being analysed. Any good historian will strive to access records deriving from the period they are studying. For example Rich & Bill spend long hours going through archives containing material written at the time of the period they study. They place far greater weight on operational orders, logistic reports, training schedules, letters and diaries written during the events they are researching than on secondary literature. Secondary literature is normally only used to indicate the historiography (sorry, that's a long word; you'll just have to look it up in your 'big boy's first dictionary for simpletons') or where there are areas of conflicting opinion. Where diaries and later memoirs are used any half-way decent historian will attempt to highlight the biases of the author and the temporal distance of the writing from events described. Taking an earlier example this is why Ammianus Marcellinus is a more useful source for late fourth century Roman history than Zosimus writing in the early sixth century as the former was a participant in many of the events he described. Likewise both Asser's Life of Alfred and Einhard's Life of Charlemagne are invaluable as they are contemporary accounts by participants who personally knew their subject matters. Likewise our knowledge of fifteenth century England has been made much richer by the Paston letters, giving invaluable insights into the lives of a landed gentry family.

 

Your point about archaeology suggests to me that you've never either read an archaeological report or participated in an excavation. Archaeologists are just as prone to make mistakes, misinterpret data and draw general assumptions from specific evidence as historians. I can give you two examples: Collingwood & Myers interpretation of the distribution of quoit brooches in fifth century burials in south east Britain as an indication of rapid Anglo-Saxon domination and the annihilation &/or displacement of the Romano-British population. Another example would be Leslie Alcock's excavation of South Cadbury from which he drew the highly contentious conclusion that this was the basis for Camelot and definitive proof for the existence of Arthur. In both cases subsequent work by both archaeologists and historians have demonstrated these histories based on 'scientific archaeological forensic examinations' to be erroneous and highly misleading. Furthermore on the basis of exactly the same archaeological data it is quite possible for two archaeologists to come to almost diametrically (oops, sorry I've done it again - off you trot to your dictionary once more) opposed views of the development of fifth and sixth century Britain/Anglo-Saxon England - see Ken Dark & Nick Higham's works. Speaking from personal experience I've learnt more about seventh century Scottish history from the study of Adomnan's Vitae Columba, early Irish penitentials and law codes and the Annals of Ulster & the Annals of Tigernach than I ever did from the digs I participated in at Dunadd and Iona.

 

Finally you might want to consider that film is just as easy a medium to manipulate and distort for propaganda purposes as the written word and is, therefore, intrinsically no more reliable than written evidence.

 

Please don't bother reply to this diatribe (sorry, I keep forgetting) as you'll only add to the dunghill of stupidity that you've cruelly deposited onto this site.

[Rich]

In a cornucopia of stupidity with which you've sullied this 'Grate Sight'[TM] this is the most arrant nonsense you've spouted yet.

 

Let me try to explain this to you (again) very slowly, using words with as few syllables as possible so as not to over-tax your manifestly limited intellect. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin.

 

....Please don't bother reply to this diatribe (sorry, I keep forgetting) as you'll only add to the dunghill of stupidity that you've cruelly deposited onto this site.

 

 

I think you could have a good second job writing for "History Today" Conall, that was priceless. I haven't laughed so hard at something that was intentionally - rather than unintentionally (f.e. PFCEM and of course JWB) - funny on this 'Grate Sight'[TM] for quite a while.

[JWB]

In a cornucopia of stupidity with which you've sullied this 'Grate Sight'[TM] this is the most arrant nonsense you've spouted yet.

 

Let me try to explain this to you (again) very slowly, using words with as few syllables as possible so as not to over-tax your manifestly limited intellect. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin.

 

History is about studying documentation contemporary to the events being analysed How does a historian determine the veracity of the documents? . Any good historian will strive to access records deriving from the period they are studying Again, how do you determine if the documents are accurate or even real? . For example Rich & Bill spend long hours going through archives containing material written at the time of the period they study. They place far greater weight on operational orders, logistic reports How do you know the logistical reports are correct?, training schedules How do you know they were followed? , letters and diaries written during the events they are researching than on secondary literature. Secondary literature is normally only used to indicate the historiography (sorry, that's a long word; you'll just have to look it up in your 'big boy's first dictionary for simpletons') or where there are areas of conflicting opinion. Where diaries and later memoirs are used any half-way decent historian will attempt to highlight the biases of the author and the temporal distance of the writing from events described. Taking an earlier example this is why Ammianus Marcellinus is a more useful source for late fourth century Roman history than Zosimus writing in the early sixth century as the former was a participant in many of the events he described. Likewise both Asser's Life of Alfred and Einhard's Life of Charlemagne are invaluable as they are contemporary accounts by participants who personally knew their subject matters. Likewise our knowledge of fifteenth century England has been made much richer by the Paston letters, giving invaluable insights into the lives of a landed gentry family. How do you know those documents were not modified or edited by persons after the diarists in question died? How do you know parts weren't stolen or deleted by somebody?

 

 

 

Your point about archaeology suggests to me that you've never either read an archaeological report or participated in an excavation. Archaeologists are just as prone to make mistakes, misinterpret data and draw general assumptions from specific evidence as historians. I can give you two examples: Collingwood & Myers interpretation of the distribution of quoit brooches in fifth century burials in south east Britain as an indication of rapid Anglo-Saxon domination and the annihilation &/or displacement of the Romano-British population. Another example would be Leslie Alcock's excavation of South Cadbury from which he drew the highly contentious conclusion that this was the basis for Camelot and definitive proof for the existence of Arthur. In both cases subsequent work by both archaeologists Yes, archaeologists. Without them the ultimate proof could not be gain be historians by themselves. and historians have demonstrated these histories based on 'scientific archaeological forensic examinations' to be erroneous and highly misleading There were misleading because they weren't properly carried out. . Furthermore on the basis of exactly the same archaeological data it is quite possible for two archaeologists to come to almost diametrically (oops, sorry I've done it again - off you trot to your dictionary once more) opposed views of the development of fifth and sixth century Britain/Anglo-Saxon England - see Ken Dark & Nick Higham's works. Speaking from personal experience I've learnt more about seventh century Scottish history from the study of Adomnan's Vitae Columba, early Irish penitentials and law codes and the Annals of Ulster & the Annals of Tigernach than I ever did from the digs I participated in at Dunadd and Iona. That is because you don't know how to do archaeology. You also don't know what to look for. Did you have metallurgical tests conducted on artifacts? Did you have radiocarbon dating done? Did order up genetic testing of human remains?

 

Finally you might want to consider that film is just as easy a medium to manipulate and distort for propaganda purposes as the written word and is, Bullshit! That is absolute rubbish and if you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't write such fecal garbage. therefore, intrinsically no more reliable than written evidence.

 

Please don't bother reply to this diatribe (sorry, I keep forgetting) as you'll only add to the dunghill of stupidity that you've cruelly deposited onto this site.Why shouldn't I? Are you the king of the illuminati ? Do you have some kind of special wisdom? Of course not. You are just another of the self absorbed half educated pseudo elite trying to make people believe that what you do is even as marginally respectable or important as true professions like brain surgery, economics, or nuclear physics. What you do, as I wrote previously,is little more than journalism and can be done by anybody willing to spend some time at a library.

[History Buff]

JWB, I've never seen anyone work so hard to look obstinate and ignorant yet make it seem so effortless.

Edited December 16, 2007 by History Buff

[SCFalken]

This thread is headed for TN Legend.

 

 

If MODERATOR (pbuh) does not intervene.

 

 

 

 

Falken

[Mote]

How do you know those documents were not modified or edited by persons after the diarists in question died? How do you know parts weren't stolen or deleted by somebody?

 

Through basic literary analysis.