What if-?

If it doesn't fit .. It fits here .. - -

Re: What if-?

Postby Apex » Sun Aug 11, 2013 2:49 pm

I agree with Webb, he has it right. And yes, the Soviet/Germany treaty was that of non-aggression, not an alliance.

Sooner or later we would have been drawn into the war. It was too far-reaching even before Pearl Harbor to continue to exclude us.

There have been writings that Pearl Harbor was "allowed to happen", however, I personally can't imagine the US sacrificing all those lives and ships.

Deep down inside, FDR [probably] wanted very badly to actively help the Allies, but the neutralist political forces in the US prevented that without a viable excuse
to jump into the fray.

Any other thoughts here? I forget a lot of what I read long ago. It's an interesting "What if" scenario.
Apex
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1280
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 10:33 pm

Re: What if-?

Postby CrashII » Sun Aug 11, 2013 2:57 pm

OldAirmail wrote:
What is the capitol of Iowa, Paris or Montréal?


Des Moines...
CrashII
2nd Lieutenant
2nd Lieutenant
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 10:32 am

Re: What if-?

Postby OldAirmail » Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:31 pm

"I agree with Webb, he has it right. And yes, the Soviet/Germany treaty was that of non-aggression, not an alliance."

I agree too. I'm just wondering where he came up with that. I didn't mention "alliance". And although the Wikipedia article mentions the word in other contexts, overall it describes the German/Soviet agreement as a "pact".

I think that he was just filling in details. That or he scanned through my post and misread it.
User avatar
OldAirmail
Major
Major
 
Posts: 4814
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:06 pm
Location: Concrete, WA ICAO - 3W5

Re: What if-?

Postby OldAirmail » Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:33 pm

CrashII wrote:
OldAirmail wrote:
What is the capitol of Iowa, Paris or Montréal?


Des Moines...

Damn! You're smarter than I am. :D

I was about to look it up. :lol:
User avatar
OldAirmail
Major
Major
 
Posts: 4814
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:06 pm
Location: Concrete, WA ICAO - 3W5

Re: What if-?

Postby OldAirmail » Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:42 pm

In all seriousness though, the 2 atomic bombs forced the Japanese military, who had co-opted the Emperor, to surrender.

Had we invaded the Japanese home islands, the loss of life among the Japanese would have been far greater than that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
User avatar
OldAirmail
Major
Major
 
Posts: 4814
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:06 pm
Location: Concrete, WA ICAO - 3W5

Re: What if-?

Postby H » Fri Aug 16, 2013 2:33 am

Is this with the assumption that Wake had not been attacked at the same time? A reason is a reason, an excuse is an excuse...


8)
H
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 5525
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:27 am
Location: NH, USA

Re: What if-?

Postby wifesaysno » Fri Aug 16, 2013 3:36 am

Pearl Harbor was unavoidable. Japan was pressed for resources, war with the allies was the only way for Japan to avoid collapse and as such it must hit its opponents hard and fast, that means hitting the US fleet at Manila, Pearl Harbor, and taking the outpost of Wake.

The real and seriously plausible question to ask about WW2 is what would have happened if Rommel received the 2 more divisions he asked for...there is serious evidence to suggest that Rommel could have gone all the way to the Caucasus Mountains, taking the Suez Canal, isolating the colonies from the UK, gaining access to mid-east oil fields, and holding a knife to Stalin's oil fields paralyzing them. Rommel consistently would defeat the allies even with greatly outnumbered forces, only when supplies ran so low that his force could not attack anymore did he stop attacking. His speed of action and his own ambitions to take the Suez and access the middle-east oil fields was restrained only because he had just 3 poorly supplied divisions and a handful of not-so-motivated Italian divisions.

I suggest reading "How Hitler Could Have Won WW2". It is a great read and clears up a lot of myths about the 'what-if' scenarios always popularized today.
wifesaysno
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: What if-?

Postby Bass » Fri Aug 16, 2013 6:37 am

wahubna wrote:.............

The real and seriously plausible question to ask about WW2 is what would have happened if Rommel received the 2 more divisions he asked for...there is serious evidence to suggest that Rommel could have gone all the way to the Caucasus Mountains, taking the Suez Canal, isolating the colonies from the UK, gaining access to mid-east oil fields, and holding a knife to Stalin's oil fields paralyzing them. Rommel consistently would defeat the allies even with greatly outnumbered forces, only when supplies ran so low that his force could not attack anymore did he stop attacking. His speed of action and his own ambitions to take the Suez and access the middle-east oil fields was restrained only because he had just 3 poorly supplied divisions and a handful of not-so-motivated Italian divisions.

I suggest reading "How Hitler Could Have Won WW2". It is a great read and clears up a lot of myths about the 'what-if' scenarios always popularized today.


How right you are, wahubna!
I can only repeat myself. We are very lucky that lunitic did not listen to his generals...
User avatar
Bass
Major
Major
 
Posts: 3043
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:32 am
Location: Scandinavia

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 330 guests