W.W.2 No Germans to North Africa...

[R011]

On 1/28/2024 at 2:13 PM, Rick said:

Just my opinion, but I don't the the U.S.A.A.F. would have nuked Berlin. The atom bomb was used on Japan due to the tenacious "fighting spirit" of the Japanese. They would not readily surrender no matter what the odds or circumstances while the Germans would. Invading Japan would resulted in massive casualties for civilian and military due to the psychological nature the Japanese.  

The Bomb was developed to use against Germany.  If Germany is still in the war in August 1945 and  using nuclear weapons appears worth while, they'd have used them.  I'm not sure that if Germany was in the state it was in real life in April that the Western Allies would use them.

[bojan]

I also doubt that nuke would be used if Germany was falling apart by the mid-1945 (when those became available), but if it still was presenting enough resistance that war in Europe could not be finished before end of 1945-early 1946.. that would be strong factor for use.

Edited January 29, 2024 by bojan

[glenn239]

15 hours ago, Perun said:

Did British had manpower for that

Maybe, if they don't go forward with the disasterous intervention in Greece.

[seahawk]

12 hours ago, JWB said:

If H ignores N.A. then the U.K. is in control of all North Africa by mid 1942. M still declares war against U.S.A. which means TORCH goes into Sicily.  BAYTOWN happens 6 months sooner.  With 6 months of good campaign weather the Allied force could reach the Po by the end of 1943. The Po would certainly be crossed during summer 1944.  B8A heads east to Zagreb then south to Greece. US5A would follow the Brits but turn north into Austria. If Clark takes Vienna H probably gets deposed by his own generals.

Torch against Scilly might not work.

[Stuart Galbraith]

19 hours ago, seahawk said:

Nobody would fight a war with the Soviets after the Nazis have been defeated, even if the Soviets move into Paris.

Once again, read what I said. This is an alternative history where the Nazis have NOT been defeated yet, and the Americans would be destroying Berlin WITH NAZIS IN IT with a nuclear weapon, per encourager des autres.

And if that sounds kind of wack, Id argue its precisely why the US used 2 Atomic bombs on Japan. Swap Berlin for Hiroshimia, Dresden for Nagasaki.

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 hours ago, R011 said:

The Bomb was developed to use against Germany.  If Germany is still in the war in August 1945 and  using nuclear weapons appears worth while, they'd have used them.  I'm not sure that if Germany was in the state it was in real life in April that the Western Allies would use them.

Yes of course they would. We were still strategic bombing up till the end of the war. The use of an Atomic bomb (or at least the way it was seen at that time) was just incrementing up what they were already doing.

[Stuart Galbraith]

14 hours ago, JWB said:

P-63?

There are some real doubts whether the Soviets even used them operationally by the end of the war. I remember on the old Stormwings forum that the guy who programmed IL2 (Oleg wasnt it?) was presented with evidence that a German Flak gunner claimed to have shot at a P63 in the last days of the war, which he identified it with a loop antenna. And that is all the evidence there is the Soviets had them operational.

Besides, it would be PVO that would be responsible for bomber interception. Im pretty sure P63's went to VVS like the P39 did.

[Stuart Galbraith]

14 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

You are glenn239, and I claim my five pounds! 😃

No, to be fair he didnt mention Siebel Ferry once.

[seahawk]

7 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Once again, read what I said. This is an alternative history where the Nazis have NOT been defeated yet, and the Americans would be destroying Berlin WITH NAZIS IN IT with a nuclear weapon, per encourager des autres.

And if that sounds kind of wack, Id argue its precisely why the US used 2 Atomic bombs on Japan. Swap Berlin for Hiroshimia, Dresden for Nagasaki.

Which would stop the Soviets how? At that moment they are still allies of the USA, so some form of Yalta would still happen.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Just now, seahawk said:

Which would stop the Soviets how? At that moment they are still allies of the USA, so some form of Yalta would still happen.

If they are at the point where the Western allies are not in Western Europe, and the Soviets have the opportunity, they arent going to stop. Stalin himself joked about replicating what the Tsar Alexander I did, going as far as Paris.

Ultimately if they have gone as far as Berlin, they suddenly dont need to be allies anymore, anymore than they needed us to be allies in 1946 historically.

 

[seahawk]

Yes, so either there is some form of Yalta, which decides future spheres of influence or the Soviets will go to Paris or Madrid. A nuke changes nothing unless the western Allies would be willing to use nukes against the Soviets and fight them. But that is alternate history territory.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Would this be the same Yalta agreement that declared partial Western responsibility for Czechoslovakia, which was then toppled in a Communist coup? Could it be that Stalin might have signed a deal he wasnt actually planning on keeping?

Im shocked I tell you, shocked.

The whole thread is alternative history, I dont see im going out on a wing here.

[seahawk]

Obviously the Soviets will take what they can get, as they liberated Europe from Nazism and local populations favoured Communism over the corrupt capitalists.

[Perun]

7 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Maybe, if they don't go forward with the disasterous intervention in Greece.

I doubt that, they would be powerless whitout US

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

Obviously the Soviets will take what they can get, as they liberated Europe from Nazism and local populations favoured Communism over the corrupt capitalists.

As usual you are joking, but there is some truth in what you say actually. There was grave concern among the French Secret Service about the amount of Communists armed with weapon by SOE. In fact I found one source claiming that the head of the BCRA (which was roughly the Free French equivalent of SOE) had been discovered embezzling funds in 1946, but was later completely cleared. Historians have summised that it was a semi official coningency fund he was putting aside, for use in case of a Communist uprising.

In 1944/45, with an Invasion of France (and if we were not there yet), the Soviets might actually have pulled it off.  If of course all we did was an admonishing finger, which frankly with what the Americans were cooking up at Los Alamos, I cant see as being rather likely.

[seahawk]

14 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

As usual you are joking, but there is some truth in what you say actually. There was grave concern among the French Secret Service about the amount of Communists armed with weapon by SOE. In fact I found one source claiming that the head of the BCRA (which was roughly the Free French equivalent of SOE) had been discovered embezzling funds in 1946, but was later completely cleared. Historians have summised that it was a semi official coningency fund he was putting aside, for use in case of a Communist uprising.

In 1944/45, with an Invasion of France (and if we were not there yet), the Soviets might actually have pulled it off.  If of course all we did was an admonishing finger, which frankly with what the Americans were cooking up at Los Alamos, I cant see as being rather likely.

Lots of the resistance movements against the Nazis were Communist. Which is logical as not only were they well organized from before the war, they also got support form Moscow and were hunted without mercy by the Nazis. Imho at the end of the war, it is rather simple. Any country with allied troops in it, will become western, any country with Soviet troops will become Communist and any country not occupied but part of the war, will also become communist, as the Soviets will be more ruthless in supporting their pawns.

[Markus Becker]

10 hours ago, bojan said:

I also doubt that nuke would be used if Germany was falling apart by the mid-1945 (when those became available), but if it still was presenting enough resistance that war in Europe could not be finished before end of 1945-early 1946.. that would be strong factor for use.

Speaking of, 

I recall that Germany was off the target list by the end of 1944 when the allied forces had reached the western border of the Reich. Probably to conserve the rather few nukes the allies had.

[Markus Becker]

On 1/28/2024 at 11:41 PM, bojan said:

PS. IMO, far more interesting scenario is "What if Italy does not declare war on UK and France?". Does RAF gets their 300 Re.2000 and 300 Caproni 313 that they have ordered in January 1940?

The French ordered another 200 313's. That some huge orders the Italians were getting and accepting.

[seahawk]

11 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

The French ordered another 200 313's. That some huge orders the Italians were getting and accepting.

Yep, if Italy would have remained neutral, they could have made a fortune selling to both sides.

[Markus Becker]

I'm a bit surprised they were selling arms in the first place to what appears only one side or did Germany also get "something" from Italy?

[bojan]

2 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

Speaking of, 

I recall that Germany was off the target list by the end of 1944 when the allied forces had reached the western border of the Reich. Probably to conserve the rather few nukes the allies had.

IIRC after Battle of Bulge, when it was clear that Germany could no longer offer effective resistance. But with eastern front being more static there would be more troops for Germany to place in the west, so that is not given in this timeline.

54 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

I'm a bit surprised they were selling arms in the first place to what appears only one side or did Germany also get "something" from Italy?

What could they get that they really needed? Allies were getting things they were desperate for, fighters and light bombers. Germans had their own, pretty good ones and had more-less enough of them.

 

[futon]

On 1/29/2024 at 8:43 AM, Argus said:

However I have to ask for the thinking behind your position here.  You say the Japanese would care more about what was happening between Germany and Russia, than about what the Cw was doing in the Med. The Russian front has little direct impact on Japan or its projected expansion to the South, it doesn't plan on fighting Russia (again) or expect any direct help from Germany. Yet they do plan on attacking the British directly, and the North African/Med campaign is being fought for and across the principal line of communication between Britain and the Japanese, its utterly critical to 25-50% of the war they are looking to fight... and you'd say Tokyo would ignore it....?????? 

That depends on at what point in time. From 1937, China was the main focus. The US and GB were generally antagonistic by backing CKS. By 1940, the Wang Regime had been established which was a basis for ending that war. That was Japan's key interest point. South East Asia hinged on that due to Burma supply road and the oil embargo. So there is a context to them "planning on attacking the British". A context so often ignored. No Burma road (but more critically, no oil embargo), no Malaya Campaign. About the SU, it has always been a prime security concern of Japan. Prior to Barbarossa, Japan tried to develop relations with the SU, sort in a common sense with the German-SU pact. But those attempts disappeared fast with the surprise Barbarossa campaign. Very soon the Japanese saw that possible window of opportunity and bolstered forces in Manchuria by early July. The plan was to launch an assualt to "finally solve the Soviet problem" if they detect a certain amount of drop in the presense of SU forces in the Far East. But by the end of July and August, the =oil embargo-out of China demand= combo shifted priorities again. A big campaign in the Russia Far East needed oil, along with maintaining forces in China, and of course daily life, etc. Furthermore, by September, the Japanese estimated that Operation Barbarossa wasn't going to succeed in time before the winter hit. Places in Manchuria during the winter saw -30 celsius that the Japanese experimented with in with battle training. So they knew what a Russian winter would mean. So, that left only one choice given Konoe's failure to find a diplomatic breakthrough with the FDR administration. But if it is a hypothetical that has two factors being toggled off,  (1) the oil embargo being turned off and (2) the other being a more successful Operation Barbarossa, even if not a member of the Axis, the Japanese would have went for the Far East. The Burma Road would be just a thorn with no oil embargo. If GB still wants Malaya, Singapore, and HK.. then close the Burma Road and recognize the Wang Regime as the next leadership of the Nationalists Chinese. No reason for Japan to go after those with a new normalcy established. The UK ended up losing it all anyway, with HK now part of CCP China with all the protests, reluctance, and resistance so.. 

Edited January 30, 2024 by futon

[Perun]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantokuen

[JWB]

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

There are some real doubts whether the Soviets even used them operationally by the end of the war. I remember on the old Stormwings forum that the guy who programmed IL2 (Oleg wasnt it?) was presented with evidence that a German Flak gunner claimed to have shot at a P63 in the last days of the war, which he identified it with a loop antenna. And that is all the evidence there is the Soviets had them operational.

Besides, it would be PVO that would be responsible for bomber interception. Im pretty sure P63's went to VVS like the P39 did.

Hans Rudel, the most-decorated pilot of the Luftwaffe, states in his memoirs, "We often encounter American types of aircraft, especially Airacobras, Kingcobras .............

[JWB]

10 hours ago, seahawk said:

Torch against Scilly might not work.

Why not?