Simviation Forums

Just got to thinking (a little discussion with the wife "navigator") and we pose the question for thought as this-,
"What would be the outcome of World War II if Pearl Harbor didn't happen???

To name a few things:

The atomic bomb wouldn't have been developed (good)
The cold war would have never happened (good)
Europe would have been liberated by the Canadians, allied European forces and Russia (which happened anyway, don't believe everything Hollywood tells you)
Japan wouldn't have been involved in a bloody war in the Pacific (good)
Half of Europe wouldn't have been occupied by Russia, because they didn't want the US to get to close (good)

Shall I continue?

CrashII wrote:Europe would have been liberated by the Canadians, allied European forces and Russia (which happened anyway, don't believe everything Hollywood tells you)
Japan wouldn't have been involved in a bloody war in the Pacific (good)

I'm not so sure about that. Don't forget that Japan attacked & overran Singapore & other British colonies in the Far East. Australia was also under threat. If the USA had remained neutral things might have been very different.

True Doug. Fortunately it's impossible to do it all over again and see what would happen if. All is just speculation.

Now, this is a very hypothetical question and noone can ever answer that!
You could also ask:
What if...we had no water and/or sun?

Bass wrote:Now, this is a very hypothetical question and noone can ever answer that!
You could also ask:
What if...we had no water and/or sun?

I would be cold and dry... ...!

Paul... ...!

Bass wrote:Now, this is a very hypothetical question and noone can ever answer that!
You could also ask:
What if...we had no water and/or sun?

There wouldn't be life. At least not as we know it...

CrashII wrote:

Bass wrote:Now, this is a very hypothetical question and noone can ever answer that!
You could also ask:
What if...we had no water and/or sun?

There wouldn't be life. At least not as we know it...

You might be right, but then again, who knows what will be!

No sun or water? Well, there would be NO TAN LINES, good. But what would one mix with their favorite adult beverage? bad

you could also go as far as to say (the way you all are thinking), what if we ALL looked alike (i.e. skin, hair, body), and we all thought alike (God! for once everyone on the same page).

But think a minute-, no battleships lost or loss of life. The entire population would change with the lives survived over the lives lost. and even "our" existance come into the play...

Just a thought...

CrashII wrote:To name a few things:

...
...
Europe would have been liberated by the Canadians, allied European forces and Russia (which happened anyway, don't believe everything Hollywood tells you)
...
...

Shall I continue?

To pick just one thing.



Your questions, as a whole, reminds me of something I heard about 10 - 15 years ago. It was one of those "man in the street" interview/questions where they ask a simple question that everybody should know, but many don't.

Something such as asking "What is the capitol of Iowa," (An island in the western Pacific, I think) "Paris or Montréal?" (You'd be surprised how many chose the wrong one!)


In this case the actual question was "During World War II, who's side were the Germans on? Most got it wrong.


So your statement that "Europe would have been liberated by the Canadians, allied European forces and Russia..." falls in line with the level of education that a great many have achieved. At least here in the US.



The Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, AKA the "Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact".

"The Pact ensured a non-involvement of the Soviet Union in a European War,..."

"In addition to stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol that divided territories of Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland into Nazi and Soviet "spheres of influence", anticipating potential "territorial and political rearrangements"


"Shall I continue?"

What is the capitol of Iowa, Paris or Montréal?

Japan would have continued its eastward expansion. That was its entire point of the war - economics. It would eventually collide with American interests. If Japan had not bombed Pearl Harbor America's entry into the war would only be delayed.

The atomic bomb would have been developed anyway. Atomic power had been in development for years before the war started.

If America entered the war, let's say 6 months later, it would only have benefited Germany. The Soviet Union may have been smaller because Germany would have occupied land farther east allowing the Allies to occupy land farther east, maybe even Berlin. That would have helped with the Cold War.

Germany surrendered before America developed an operable atomic bomb. Considering the immense damage the Allies inflicted on Germany with conventional weapons I have no doubt we would have used atomic weapons if they were available.

The Molotov-Rippentrop Pact was a treaty of non-agression, not an alliance.

It lasted from August 23, 1939 (a few days before Germany invaded Poland) until June 22, 1941 (when Germany invaded the Soviet Union).

The Germans were never "on the Russian's side" and vice versa.

Webb wrote:The Molotov-Rippentrop Pact was a treaty of non-agression, not an alliance.

It lasted from August 23, 1939 (a few days before Germany invaded Poland) until June 22, 1941 (when Germany invaded the Soviet Union).

The Germans were never "on the Russian's side" and vice versa.

You asked ...

In this case the actual question was "During World War II, who's side were the Germans on?

They weren't on the Russian's side. I suppose you could say they were on the Italian's side.