If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
... "John Mullen" wrote in message ... "Stuart Wilkes" wrote in message om... "John Mullen" wrote in message ... Germany looted a huge amount of gold, fuel, weapons, ammo, food, trucks, and industrial production from occupied France. It came to ~15 gigabucks (1940 dollars) IIRC. OTOH they alsoguaranteed a fight with the UK, then still (just!) the world's leading military power. By what measure ? The RN may have been arguably the strongest although the USN was surely equal or better. The RAF was able to hold its own on the defensive (just) but it was in no shape to launch any real attacks on the nemey and the army was pitifully small in comparison to that of Germany and was for the most part less well equipped and led. 1) RN was still (slightly) stronger than the USN (see 3 below). RAF was, as you say, able (just) to do its job in defending the UK. The army was not nearly as pitifully small as in WW1 and could count on massive reinforcement in logistics from the colonies, which the aforementioned RN and RAF would guarantee would (mostly) get through. 2) Although leadership in all three services still had its share of idiots (blame the class/caste system which was still a major factor then), we at least had the advantage that most officers, particularly at higher levels, had experience of fighting in WW1, an advantage shared only by Germany of the other major participants. In Churchill, once he was PM, and for all his many faults, we had a truly great war leader with not only an intimate knowledge of the minutiae of warfare but also a developing ability to delegate. 3) As far as equipment goes, while the army in particular was poorly equipped and the RN still largely depended on WW1 vintage ships, the RAF had (just!) begun to equip with truly first-rate kit, some exceptions like the Battle and Stirling accepted. Unlike (for example) the US, we also had (2) above which meant that particularly in ASW tactics and naval gunnery we had very much more of a clue than in WW1. Radar was another good thing, as was cryptography. Overall, these factors IMO gave us the edge over the US in the 1939-40 time frame. Of course: 4) By the end of the war, the US had grown and left us way behind. 5) We couldn't possibly have prevailed without their (largely self-interested) help. Without these resources, the German effort in the East is likely to fall a great deal short. Japan consolidates in China That will never happen. Even without trying to take on the US? Yes, the amount of help that reached the Chinese before the repoening of the Burma Road in 1944 was little more than token and the Japanese simply lacked the manpower to effectively subjugate China. then attacks Siberia. And gets trounced as bad as they did in 1937 - 1939. And there's no oil they can get to in Siberia, even if they do win, which they won't. Even without trying to take on the US? Yep, there still wasnt any oil in Siberia and that was the limiting factor for Japan. Accepted. I still think it's an interesting thought experiment to imagine what happens if Germany and Japan get their act together and do some proper joint planning either before or even during the war. The Panama Canal comes to mind. John |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"John Mullen" wrote in message ...
"Stuart Wilkes" wrote in message om... "John Mullen" wrote in message ... snip Think Germany and Japan, working together in a coordinated way, could have beaten the Soviets without bringing the US or UK into the war? Yes and no. Yes, Germany can attack the Soviets without the West getting in the way. Skip the occupation of Prague, and go straight for Poland. Poland is not well thought-of in the West, since they joined in on the carveup of Czechoslovakia. Then occupy the Baltic States. Now start the Anti-Bolshevik Crusade. But they won't win. Germany has Barbarossa but without having Fall Gelb first. Germany looted a huge amount of gold, fuel, weapons, ammo, food, trucks, and industrial production from occupied France. It came to ~15 gigabucks (1940 dollars) IIRC. OTOH they also guaranteed a fight with the UK, then still (just!) the world's leading military power. A power that in 1939-1940 really didn't do much to hurt Germany. Once France was conquered, Germany proceeded to garrison it with green recruits training on captured Czechoslovak, Polish, and French equipment, or 35-40 year old Privates in fortress regiments with old weapons and no transport, or, in time, with shattered wrecks of divisions recovering from their experiences in the East. All fed and housed at French expense (which was the real point). Conquering and looting France was a huge money-maker for the Germans, and without those resources a German war effort in the East quickly runs out of (financial, then actual) gas. Without these resources, the German effort in the East is likely to fall a great deal short. Japan consolidates in China That will never happen. Even without trying to take on the US? There's really nothing Japan can do to force China to make peace, the US or no. then attacks Siberia. And gets trounced as bad as they did in 1937 - 1939. And there's no oil they can get to in Siberia, even if they do win, which they won't. Even without trying to take on the US? There's even less the Japanese can do to the USSR that will force them to make peace. The IJA is configured for a (fruitless) infantry war in China. It has neither the armor, artillery, or logistics for a mechanized war against the Soviets. It would be like bringing a Samurai sword to Kursk... Stuart Wilkes |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"John Mullen" wrote in message ...
"Stuart Wilkes" wrote in message om... "John Mullen" wrote in message ... snip great post Great post! It was. And, by choosing the eastern, Pacific route of expansion rather than the western, they ensured that the Navy rather than the Army would have precedence in the Japanese junta of the time. These guys made an absolute art-form of inter-service rivalry! Interesting to speculate what if they had pursued the western route instead. Of course if they and the Nazis had been proper allies instead of mistrustful (as well as untrustworthy!) basket cases, they'd have been having this discussion in late 1940 or so. Think Germany and Japan, working together in a coordinated way, could have beaten the Soviets without bringing the US or UK into the war? Yes and no. Yes, Germany can attack the Soviets without the West getting in the way. Skip the occupation of Prague, and go straight for Poland. Poland is not well thought-of in the West, since they joined in on the carveup of Czechoslovakia. Then occupy the Baltic States. Now start the Anti-Bolshevik Crusade. But they won't win. Germany has Barbarossa but without having Fall Gelb first. Germany looted a huge amount of gold, fuel, weapons, ammo, food, trucks, and industrial production from occupied France. It came to ~15 gigabucks (1940 dollars) IIRC. OTOH they alsoguaranteed a fight with the UK, then still (just!) the world's leading military power. Without these resources, the German effort in the East is likely to fall a great deal short. Japan consolidates in China That will never happen. Even without trying to take on the US? then attacks Siberia. And gets trounced as bad as they did in 1937 - 1939. And there's no oil they can get to in Siberia, even if they do win, which they won't. Even without trying to take on the US? And then perhaps done Western Europe afterwards. Assume a 1938/9 understanding greater than actually happened. Dosen't help. Neither has what it takes, although the West might support the Axis if it looks like the Bolshies are about to win it all. Now that would be an interesting thought! Certainly lead to a different history... WWII would not have ended any other way. Since we although we didn't tell the morons in Europe, we obviously would have killed every German and Russian in every industrial city in Europe rather than let them build an Atomic Bomb before we did. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"John Mullen" wrote in message ... "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... 1) RN was still (slightly) stronger than the USN (see 3 below). RAF was, as you say, able (just) to do its job in defending the UK. The army was not nearly as pitifully small as in WW1 and could count on massive reinforcement in logistics from the colonies, which the aforementioned RN and RAF would guarantee would (mostly) get through. There was nothing much in it In 1914 the BEF had 6 British Infantry Divisions, 2 Indian Infantry Divisions 1 British Cavalry division and 1 Indian Calavry Brigade In 1939 their were 2 regular infantry divisions in the Aldershot zone , 1 in the Eastern Zone at Colchester, 2 TA Divisions in the London Zone, 1 regular division in the Northern Zone , 1 TA Division in Scotland, 1 Armored Division and 1 regular infantry Division in Southern command and 2 TA Divisions in Wales In total 5 Regular Infantry divisions, 4 of TA Infantry and 1 Armored Division not all of the TA divisions were suitable for short term use 2) Although leadership in all three services still had its share of idiots (blame the class/caste system which was still a major factor then), we at least had the advantage that most officers, particularly at higher levels, had experience of fighting in WW1, an advantage shared only by Germany of the other major participants. The French were involved rather heavily in WW1 you'll find In Churchill, once he was PM, and for all his many faults, we had a truly great war leader with not only an intimate knowledge of the minutiae of warfare but also a developing ability to delegate. And had screwed up royally at Gallipoli , the British Army was no more ready for amphibious warfare in Norway in 1940 than it had been in the Dardanelles 3) As far as equipment goes, while the army in particular was poorly equipped and the RN still largely depended on WW1 vintage ships, the RAF had (just!) begun to equip with truly first-rate kit, some exceptions like the Battle and Stirling accepted. The Stirling didnt arrive in numbers until 1942 I think you'll find. Unlike (for example) the US, we also had (2) above which meant that particularly in ASW tactics and naval gunnery we had very much more of a clue than in WW1. Radar was another good thing, as was cryptography. Overall, these factors IMO gave us the edge over the US in the 1939-40 time frame. Damm few ships had radar in 1939/40 soc.culture groups trimmed from reply Keith |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"John Mullen" wrote in message ...
Yep, there still wasnt any oil in Siberia and that was the limiting factor for Japan. Accepted. I still think it's an interesting thought experiment to imagine what happens if Germany and Japan get their act together and do some proper joint planning either before or even during the war. The Panama Canal comes to mind. John I think that Germany would only have had a chance if it had done what Spengler envisioned it should do - become the leader of Europe. Had Germany attacked the USSR with the motive of liberating its captive peoples - through establishing friendly semi-puppet republics as was done following Russia's collapse during World War I - it is likely that Moscow would have fallen. And if I recall correctly, Stalin would have been ready to offer terms had Moscow been taken. Intelligent, not fanatic, leadership would have accepted such terms, which would have meant the gain of the Baltics, Ukraine, and probably the Caucuses. Had the Germans been statesmen they would not have had to contend with resistence in eastern Europe, indeed they would probably have had several 100,000 more allied troops. It is likely that even within Russia some friendly troops cpuld be had. Not Vlasov's sullen war criminals, but free cossacks from the Don, Terek or Kuban fighting willingly against their oppresors. If the Germans had wanted to make the war into a crusade for Europe (naturally at the expense of a few unfortunates - the French and Poles) they would have stood a chance of winning. Instead, of course, Hitler's war was a crusade only for his grotesque and evil ideology, as bad as if not worse than the Bolshevism he fought. In this world, the British would not have held onto the middle east with its oil, and the world would have been a much different place for the past fifty years. This alternative strategy is not as far-fetched as it seems. Elements in the Wehrmacht were outraged at the Nazi mistreatment of Eastern Europeans, and even within the Nazi party there was for example Rosenberg, an ethnic German from Estonia, who envisioned an allied puppet Ukraine stretching from "Lviv to Saratov" (there as an interesting article about this in the Ukrainian Weekly a year or so ago). Unfortunately, rather than statesmen Germany was led by madmen. Hitler's racial theories prevented him from making Germany a leader of Europe in the manner that America would later be. As Spengler predicted in 1936, Hitler's sick reich didn't last 10 years. BM |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"The Black Monk" wrote in message om... "John Mullen" wrote in message ... Yep, there still wasnt any oil in Siberia and that was the limiting factor for Japan. Accepted. I still think it's an interesting thought experiment to imagine what happens if Germany and Japan get their act together and do some proper joint planning either before or even during the war. The Panama Canal comes to mind. John I think that Germany would only have had a chance if it had done what Spengler envisioned it should do - become the leader of Europe. Had Germany attacked the USSR with the motive of liberating its captive peoples - through establishing friendly semi-puppet republics as was done following Russia's collapse during World War I - it is likely that Moscow would have fallen. And if I recall correctly, Stalin would have been ready to offer terms had Moscow been taken. Intelligent, not fanatic, leadership would have accepted such terms, However intelligent leaders would not have embarked on such a war in the first place. The lessons of history are clear enough on the wisdom of invading Russia and frankly the possible gains were never going to be worth the cost. which would have meant the gain of the Baltics, Ukraine, and probably the Caucuses. The Caucasian oil fields were never really achievable. Even had the German forces got across the mountains the Soviets had ample time to blow up the facilities. Keith |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"The Black Monk" wrote in message om... "John Mullen" wrote in message ... Yep, there still wasnt any oil in Siberia and that was the limiting factor for Japan. Accepted. I still think it's an interesting thought experiment to imagine what happens if Germany and Japan get their act together and do some proper joint planning either before or even during the war. The Panama Canal comes to mind. John I think that Germany would only have had a chance if it had done what Spengler envisioned it should do - become the leader of Europe. Had Germany attacked the USSR with the motive of liberating its captive peoples - through establishing friendly semi-puppet republics as was done following Russia's collapse during World War I - it is likely that Moscow would have fallen. And if I recall correctly, Stalin would have been ready to offer terms had Moscow been taken. Intelligent, not fanatic, leadership would have accepted such terms, which would have meant the gain of the Baltics, Ukraine, and probably the Caucuses. Had the Germans been statesmen they would not have had to contend with resistence in eastern Europe, indeed they would probably have had several 100,000 more allied troops. It is likely that even within Russia some friendly troops cpuld be had. Not Vlasov's sullen war criminals, but free cossacks from the Don, Terek or Kuban fighting willingly against their oppresors. If the Germans had wanted to make the war into a crusade for Europe (naturally at the expense of a few unfortunates - the French and Poles) they would have stood a chance of winning. Instead, of course, Hitler's war was a crusade only for his grotesque and evil ideology, as bad as if not worse than the Bolshevism he fought. In this world, the British would not have held onto the middle east with its oil, and the world would have been a much different place for the past fifty years. This alternative strategy is not as far-fetched as it seems. Elements in the Wehrmacht were outraged at the Nazi mistreatment of Eastern Europeans, and even within the Nazi party there was for example Rosenberg, an ethnic German from Estonia, who envisioned an allied puppet Ukraine stretching from "Lviv to Saratov" (there as an interesting article about this in the Ukrainian Weekly a year or so ago). Unfortunately, rather than statesmen Germany was led by madmen. Hitler's racial theories prevented him from making Germany a leader of Europe in the manner that America would later be. As Spengler predicted in 1936, Hitler's sick reich didn't last 10 years. BM this has been said a thousand times before in a hundred books . the truth is if they were reasonable thoughtful men they wouldn't have been nazies . |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"John Mullen" wrote in message ...
"Stuart Wilkes" wrote in message om... "John Mullen" wrote in message ... snip great post Great post! It was. And, by choosing the eastern, Pacific route of expansion rather than the western, they ensured that the Navy rather than the Army would have precedence in the Japanese junta of the time. These guys made an absolute art-form of inter-service rivalry! Interesting to speculate what if they had pursued the western route instead. Of course if they and the Nazis had been proper allies instead of mistrustful (as well as untrustworthy!) basket cases, they'd have been having this discussion in late 1940 or so. Think Germany and Japan, working together in a coordinated way, could have beaten the Soviets without bringing the US or UK into the war? Yes and no. Yes, Germany can attack the Soviets without the West getting in the way. Skip the occupation of Prague, and go straight for Poland. Poland is not well thought-of in the West, since they joined in on the carveup of Czechoslovakia. Then occupy the Baltic States. Now start the Anti-Bolshevik Crusade. But they won't win. Germany has Barbarossa but without having Fall Gelb first. Germany looted a huge amount of gold, fuel, weapons, ammo, food, trucks, and industrial production from occupied France. It came to ~15 gigabucks (1940 dollars) IIRC. OTOH they alsoguaranteed a fight with the UK, then still (just!) the world's leading military power. Any proof to that opinion? The "leading military power" was removed from the continent in a few weeks of actual fighting. The biggest battle was the battle of Alamein, in which they fiught a small German corps. The Navy was strong, of course, but so far no-one won a war on continent with only the Navy. Of course, if that makes you feel beeter... Without these resources, the German effort in the East is likely to fall a great deal short. Japan consolidates in China That will never happen. Even without trying to take on the US? then attacks Siberia. And gets trounced as bad as they did in 1937 - 1939. And there's no oil they can get to in Siberia, even if they do win, which they won't. Even without trying to take on the US? And then perhaps done Western Europe afterwards. Assume a 1938/9 understanding greater than actually happened. Dosen't help. Neither has what it takes, although the West might support the Axis if it looks like the Bolshies are about to win it all. Now that would be an interesting thought! Certainly lead to a different history... John |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
... "John Mullen" wrote in message ... "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... 1) RN was still (slightly) stronger than the USN (see 3 below). RAF was, as you say, able (just) to do its job in defending the UK. The army was not nearly as pitifully small as in WW1 and could count on massive reinforcement in logistics from the colonies, which the aforementioned RN and RAF would guarantee would (mostly) get through. There was nothing much in it In 1914 the BEF had 6 British Infantry Divisions, 2 Indian Infantry Divisions 1 British Cavalry division and 1 Indian Calavry Brigade In 1939 their were 2 regular infantry divisions in the Aldershot zone , 1 in the Eastern Zone at Colchester, 2 TA Divisions in the London Zone, 1 regular division in the Northern Zone , 1 TA Division in Scotland, 1 Armored Division and 1 regular infantry Division in Southern command and 2 TA Divisions in Wales In total 5 Regular Infantry divisions, 4 of TA Infantry and 1 Armored Division not all of the TA divisions were suitable for short term use 2) Although leadership in all three services still had its share of idiots (blame the class/caste system which was still a major factor then), we at least had the advantage that most officers, particularly at higher levels, had experience of fighting in WW1, an advantage shared only by Germany of the other major participants. The French were involved rather heavily in WW1 you'll find For sure, but not (with all respect) in the second. They were invaded, defeated, surrendered, collaborated or resisted according to taste, and then liberated themselves with the help of a third of a million US and UK troops. For most of the war, most of the time, most of them weren't involved. In Churchill, once he was PM, and for all his many faults, we had a truly great war leader with not only an intimate knowledge of the minutiae of warfare but also a developing ability to delegate. And had screwed up royally at Gallipoli And served his time in the political wilderness for it. the British Army was no more ready for amphibious warfare in Norway in 1940 than it had been in the Dardanelles Was much more ready for it at Normandy though, at least partly for the bad experience at the Dardanelles. 3) As far as equipment goes, while the army in particular was poorly equipped and the RN still largely depended on WW1 vintage ships, the RAF had (just!) begun to equip with truly first-rate kit, some exceptions like the Battle and Stirling accepted. The Stirling didnt arrive in numbers until 1942 I think you'll find. My mistake. I remembered it as a crap early war big bomber. Unlike (for example) the US, we also had (2) above which meant that particularly in ASW tactics and naval gunnery we had very much more of a clue than in WW1. Radar was another good thing, as was cryptography. Overall, these factors IMO gave us the edge over the US in the 1939-40 time frame. Damm few ships had radar in 1939/40 True. But airfields benefitted from radar detection of raids, and the ships that did have it benefitted big-style, whether against surface ships or U-Boots. soc.culture groups trimmed from reply John |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Mikhail Medved" wrote in message
om... (snip) OTOH they alsoguaranteed a fight with the UK, then still (just!) the world's leading military power. Any proof to that opinion? The "leading military power" was removed from the continent in a few weeks of actual fighting. The biggest battle was the battle of Alamein, in which they fiught a small German corps. That battle was actually on the continent of Africa. The real biggest land battle didn't come until 1944 when we teamed up with the US to invade German-occupied France. Meantime we were fighting in the air, at sea, and in the minor theatres like N Africa. Would have become important had we lost though, doubt it not. The Navy was strong, of course, but so far no-one won a war on continent with only the Navy. We did not badly to win the air and sea battles with Nazi Germany. Neither was easy and both had costs attached. Of course we couldn't have won overall without the support of the USA and the USSR, both of which in their own ways hedged their bets until the decision to enter the war was forced upon them. Of the two, that of the USSR was IMO the less honourable. Of course, if that makes you feel beeter... Having a fairly balanced view about history, and exchanging ideas with people about it, both definitely make me feel better. John |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|