What If Germany Had Not Gone To War With Russia?

Originally posted by adrian roberts@Sep 21 2005, 07:05 PM
Jimbotosome
You may well be right about Roosevelts thinking about the need to enter the war sooner rather than later. But how would withdrawing the destroyer screen around PH and lining up the planes at Hickam achieve this? The Japanese wouldn't have known these things had happened until they arrived and if they were going to attack they would have done so anyway. The attack might have been less devastating (e.g if the USAAC had time to get more fighters into the air) but it would still have been all the excuse Roosevelt needed to declare war. So until there is further proof, I would still think the US orders were a mistake rather than conspiracy, and the theory about Roosevelt is possibly right but not for those reasons.
Adrian
[post=39308]Quoted post[/post]
Good points Adrian, but I'll tell you what I was thinking when I posted that. Several American ships were sunk by the Germans, including warships in the Atlantic by u-boats and the news fell on deaf ears to the American public. WWI had left such a bitter taste of war in their mouths they simply did not want any part of war. They were thinking “since they ship war materials to England they should expect it”. There was no call for war so Congress was unimpressed as well in the many incidents. There is a delicate balance between an equal military exchange and a sufficiently provoking strike. You have to keep in mind the public sentiment. It’s a material consideration. The Americans would have always looked for a rationalization or a way to “get out of” having to get into another world war. Had the destroyers picked up the task force then the bombers and fighters at Hickam would have attacked as well as the carriers in the region (they were not that far away from Pearl) and the local US submarines as well. We know from Midway that just two of those carriers were sufficient to sink four of the Japanese carriers alone. I think the Brits at Taranto had convinced both the US and Japan that carriers are the biggest Achilles Heel of battle fleets. In all probability, the Japanese having lost the element of surprise would not have moved against Pearl because all of the warships would set out after them including the carriers which the Japanese would not have known where they were but the US carriers would have known where the precise position of the Japanese Task Force was. You remember the Hornet that carried Doolittle’s Raiders? It was spotted by a Japanese fishing vessel (or spy ship…whatever) and radioed its position. As a result the decision had to be made to turn the Hornet around and head back immediately for fear of getting it sunk, so they launched the B-25s 600 miles out instead (which is why they ran out of fuel and were too early for the navigation beacons in China.

Now, parking the planes wingtip to wingtip would prevent them from mounting a sufficient counterattack to satisfy the American public. B-17s in formation could devastate carriers especially with heavy fighter escorts since the carriers would be in range of land based bombers and formations of land based bombers just couldn’t miss large ships. It probably would have been an a total annihilation of the Japanese fleet or maybe as little as a draw, then what good would that be? It would not have incited the anger needed to jump in another world war possibly like the previous, and also enough steam to in turn declare war on Germany. The risk is that it would completely satisfy the instincts for vengeance as well as many believed that the previous world war caused the Great Depression and would easily accept that consolation. You see, in this case, Roosevelt would only get “one shot” at such a provocation setup, so it had to be successful. He could not risk taking out the Japanese fleet and defang Japan to the extent the Americans were satisfied that they could not mount a war for years and go back to their pacifism that threatened their existence. That would have backfired. These are the things I would think of, when considering what it would take, were I planning such a conspiracy. I have to believe there are a lot sharper people than me, in government back then, especially at the top. They would have had to think through all possibilities and contingencies.

The Americans knew the Japanese were not as formidable as the Germans. There were two factors that allowed a slow, four year destruction of Japan. First, was the loss of the Pacific fleet allowed them to take so many islands and dig in. This took the marines a lot longer to rid the Pacific of them. Second was the fact that the US committed probably 80-90% of its military strength to the defeat of Germany. Allowing Japan to last at least until Germany was taken out. Heck even without the US Army, the Marines and the Aussies pretty much had Japan defeated not four months following VE-Day. From the Navy’s standpoint, it was so imperative to prevent attacks on Pearl that one of the first US radar stations was set up there pointing west. A group of B-17s were scheduled that day to arrive at Pearl. When the radar station reported the sighting of many airplanes closing from the east, they dismissed this contact coming from the west as these bombers. But the bombers would have been coming from the east (from the US mainland). The book is mainly about Japanese communications and decoding their messages which was supposedly partially possible but not fully (or so I have seen on the history channels), but I am not even considering those kinds of things when saying I would have “expected” an attack on Pearl just as they did. If you are going to guard the airplanes, why not guard the whole base? Perhaps the US Navy, the entire DoD and the President were bumbling idiots that didn’t understand basic military principles of base security that you would normally learn in ROTC. It’s possible. But, it is not (in my mind) probable. Neither is a conspiracy of this magnitude, necessarily that probable. But, you have to weigh the possibilities regardless. This is why I think it leaves us with the dichotomy; was is gross incompetence of people expecting an attack on Pearl, or a conspiracy by the Commander In Chief of the US Armed Forces (Roosevelt) along with an exclusive group of trusted co-conspirators?

 

Even if Roosevelt had known where the Japanese fleet was, could he/would he have ordered an attack at that time without justified provocation?

Remembering we are talking about 1941 not 2005.

Hawaii did not receive statehood until 1959.

Catch 22!!!!!!!!!!

Provocation.....Hmmmmmmmm!

incitement, needling, goading, baiting

Sounds familiar in the reverse doesn't it?

I am only playing Devil's Advocate here by the way!

 

You know, Geoff, I am not really a zealot about conspiracies, in fact they are usually hair-brained. But, I do wonder if calling it a dichotomy (one of two choices) is valid.

My premise is that the US was in imminent danger because of its pacification to Europe’s war had Britain and Russia (and eventually the other Allies as well) capitulated. I think this premise is fairly easy to accept, especially with people of the comprehension of those on this kind of forum. Now, if then someone does agree with this premise, then, they are logically forced into a dichotomy. For readability, I can present it as a trichotomy:

1) I don’t agree with the premise that the US would necessarily be in danger had Britain and Russia fallen as it appeared they would?

2) I agree with the premise and the US was in deep excrement if Germany had defeated Britain and Russia. Roosevelt and his entire military staff were complete imbeciles not to know to protect their largest Navy base. In addition Roosevelt let his nation down by not recognizing the danger to it and doing something about it and lucked out by a serendipitous event of the attack.

3) I agree with the premise and the US was in deep excrement if Germany had defeated Britain and Russia. Roosevelt had it planned with the only reasonable intent to be inducement into the war to help stop Germany before it was too late?

Is it that simple? If so, what do people believe is the correct statement? Am I missing a case?

 

Originally posted by jimbotosome@Sep 22 2005, 01:59 PM
You know, Geoff, I am not really a zealot about conspiracies, in fact they are usually hair-brained. But, I do wonder if calling it a dichotomy (one of two choices) is valid.

My premise is that the US was in imminent danger because of its pacification to Europe’s war had Britain and Russia (and eventually the other Allies as well) capitulated. I think this premise is fairly easy to accept, especially with people of the comprehension of those on this kind of forum. Now, if then someone does agree with this premise, then, they are logically forced into a dichotomy. For readability, I can present it as a trichotomy:

1) I don’t agree with the premise that the US would necessarily be in danger had Britain and Russia fallen as it appeared they would?

2) I agree with the premise and the US was in deep excrement if Germany had defeated Britain and Russia. Roosevelt and his entire military staff were complete imbeciles not to know to protect their largest Navy base. In addition Roosevelt let his nation down by not recognizing the danger to it and doing something about it and lucked out by a serendipitous event of the attack.

3) I agree with the premise and the US was in deep excrement if Germany had defeated Britain and Russia. Roosevelt had it planned with the only reasonable intent to be inducement into the war to help stop Germany before it was too late?

Is it that simple? If so, what do people believe is the correct statement? Am I missing a case?
[post=39316]Quoted post[/post]

The 1940's "Joe" in the street did not understand the World Order. Roosevelt did.

America's "isolationism" mentality had to be extricated before "self imposed" was changed to "imposed" by world events.

America would have become or stayed a power in a little puddle, not a Superpower which ultimately resulted from the catastrophic change in that World Order.

 

Jimbotosome
I think I can see your reasoning, and if the strength of isolationism in the US was as strong as you suggest in 1941 I can see why Roosevelt might have thought and planned this way. But unless someone has turned up some very incriminating documents then we can only speculate.

However there are a couple of your details that I would quibble with:

I think the Brits at Taranto had convinced both the US and Japan that carriers are the biggest Achilles Heel of battle fleets.

Surely Taranto suggested the opposite - the carrier (one, I believe) was the victor and the battleships the losers. However there had certainly been other instances where carriers had proved very vulnerable. By the end of '41 the RN had lost three of the seven carriers it started the war with: Courageous, Glorious and Ark Royal - none of these to air attack though.

B-17s in formation could devastate carriers especially with heavy fighter escorts since the carriers would be in range of land based bombers and formations of land based bombers just couldn’t miss large ships.

When did land-based heavy bombers ever sink moving warships? It is very difficult to hit a ship by level bombing. Mitchell's experiments were against moored, undefended targets and a lot of bombs were wasted. Even the sinking of the Tirpitz (which was also stationary) took at least three raids by Lancasters carrying Tallboys, and some of those raids registered no hits at all. Repulse and POW were sunk by dive bombing and torpedoes. In the Pacific, in your scenario as well as in real life, it would have been the SBDs and TBDs that would have been decisive.

But I think what all this illustrates is the enormous responsibility of leadership in war, and the vision and the ruthlessness that marks out the greatest. As you said earlier, Roosevelt had to sacrifice a few thousand lives to save many more. We have a similar debate over here, as to whether Churchill allowed Coventry to be bombed in order not to let the Germans know we were breaking their codes. When my father was seven years old, his family lost their home and all they possessed in that raid. I never felt able to ask him what he thought about it (he passed away last year). But I'm at least prepared to consider the possibility that Churchill may have been right.

I just hope our current leaders know what they are doing....

Adrian

 

Originally posted by adrian roberts+Sep 22 2005, 07:03 PM-->(adrian roberts @ Sep 22 2005, 07:03 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> I think the Brits at Taranto had convinced both the US and Japan that carriers are the biggest Achilles Heel of battle fleets.
Surely Taranto suggested the opposite - the carrier (one, I believe) was the victor and the battleships the losers. However there had certainly been other instances where carriers had proved very vulnerable. By the end of '41 the RN had lost three of the seven carriers it started the war with: Courageous, Glorious and Ark Royal - none of these to air attack though. [/b] Adrian, I think I worded that poorly. I was saying (or at least trying to) say exactly what you were saying. The fact that I mentioned Taranto (carrier dominating battleships), I assumed it spoke for itself and hence worded it wrong. It looks like I am saying carriers are Achilles Heel of a battle fleet, but what I meant were “enemy carriers” were the Achilles Heel of a battle fleet. Thanks for point that out.

Originally posted by adrian roberts@Sep 22 2005, 07:03 PM
When did land-based heavy bombers ever sink moving warships? It is very difficult to hit a ship by level bombing. Mitchell's experiments were against moored, undefended targets and a lot of bombs were wasted. Even the sinking of the Tirpitz (which was also stationary) took at least three raids by Lancasters carrying Tallboys, and some of those raids registered no hits at all. Repulse and POW were sunk by dive bombing and torpedoes. In the Pacific, in your scenario as well as in real life, it would have been the SBDs and TBDs that would have been decisive.
Well, Mitchell wasn’t using formation carpet bombing as those tactics were yet to be discovered. Modern bombers like B-17s flying low at 2000 feet in tight formation could probably put a bomb into every square yard. From a saturation bombing like this on a ship the size of a carrier would probably get at least 20 direct hits if not more. The wooden decks of the Japanese carriers would not have held a single bomb back from going all the way down to the superstructure. Take a good look at a film showing low level carpet bombing from B-17s and you will see even in WWII, they could devastate a target the size of a carrier. I think formations of B-17s would have sunk every carrier on the first pass. The ship’s AA defenses could not have stopped them, first because B-17s were notoriously rugged and could take a lot of damage from ship borne AA, much more than dive bombers. The Zeros patrolling would have been too busy with the scads of P-40 fighters that they had on Pearl as well. But, even if you disagree that it would be that easy, you still have to consider the three carriers in the area that we know from history 6 months later were more than capable of sinking carriers, especially with carrier borne fighter cover that would not be hard to coordinate as it was at Midway. Coordinate the attacks between land units and sea units and you would have probably have been searching out the battleships for lack of remaining targets. I may be naïve here but I am of the opinion that the US forces in the area could have and would have destroyed the task force if they had known about it. Then the 8 battleships at Pearl would have sunk the remaining cruisers and destroyers. I do believe this would have completely satisfied the American public. They really were averse to another world war.


Originally posted by adrian roberts@Sep 22 2005, 07:03 PM
But I think what all this illustrates is the enormous responsibility of leadership in war, and the vision and the ruthlessness that marks out the greatest. As you said earlier, Roosevelt had to sacrifice a few thousand lives to save many more. We have a similar debate over here, as to whether Churchill allowed Coventry to be bombed in order not to let the Germans know we were breaking their codes. When my father was seven years old, his family lost their home and all they possessed in that raid. I never felt able to ask him what he thought about it (he passed away last year). But I'm at least prepared to consider the possibility that Churchill may have been right.
Well put, and an excellent example of another WWII gambit. You know as hard as it was to imagine, the tactic of going after non-military and non-strategic targets like London, Coventry (et al), could be the very reason that Britain was able to withstand Germany might alone. Letting the RAF survive and rejuvenate was about as stupid a move as you could make, perhaps Hitler’s biggest blunder? I remember Bradley saying in his book that had the V1 bombs that were being used on London had been used on the D-Day invasion instead, the Germans would have devastated the Allies on the beaches and completely changed the course of the war. That’s the difference between sane leaders of nations (Churchill, Roosevelt) and insane leaders of nations (Hitler, Duce).

<!--QuoteBegin-adrian roberts@Sep 22 2005, 07:03 PM
I just hope our current leaders know what they are doing....
Yeah, only time will tell. There are a lot of parallels to that time and today. If you assume that Saddam Hussein with nuclear or chemical missiles would have been as dangerous as Hitler, you can see the importance of stopping him before he got out of control. There are several things to consider.

-It may be that WMDs had been destroyed, but I am of the belief it could not be verified or even suspected ahead of time. That was the game he chose to play.
-Since the agreement to halt the 1991 war was predicated on complete compliance including the verification of the destruction of inventoried chemical weapons in 1991
and the fact that he didn’t allow inspectors to verify their destruction was a violation of this condition to stop the war and therefore the current war is not a new war but the same war resumed per the agreement his representatives signed.
-Hussein having destroyed “those” weapons was no less a threat to obtain WMDs than Hitler was to keep the Treaty of Versailles. In short Hussein was the WMD himself.
-The sudden dissent and refusal of some nations to not keep their unanimous UN 1441 resolution agreement was not based on some kind of moral ideology or definative intelligence of the absence of WMDs but rather on economics alone. Anytime you sell your salvation for a bowl of porridge you are on a slippery slope to ruin.

If some of the rogue nations or terrorist nations get control of nuclear or chemical weapons, the world will once again be as unsafe as it was in the 1930s and 40s. It is just as hard to do the right today as it was back then and the political rhetoric and games have always been brutal to those that dared to do the right things. Heck, even Churchill lost the next election at the end of the war. Hows that for fickle humans?

 

Originally posted by jimbotosome@Sep 23 2005, 01:45 PM
Heck, even Churchill lost the next election at the end of the war. Hows that for fickle humans?
[post=39334]Quoted post[/post]

Sadly true that the British people trusted no other more than Churchill to see them through the conflict, however they did not see him as the one to take them through the post war era. The Labour Party won by a landslide.

British public opinion was alienated by Churchill's repugnance for social and economic reform (he had taken very little interest in domestic policies during the war), nor did it wish to return to the slump and unemployment of the 1930s with which the Conservatives were now identified.

Inevitably Churchill was critical of the “welfare state” reforms of his successor, Clement Attlee.

He did though become Prime Minister again in 1951 however he was then an old man of ill health and did not contribute much until his resignation in 1955.

 

Originally posted by spidge@Sep 23 2005, 12:24 AM
He did though become Prime Minister again in 1951 however he was then an old man of ill health and did not contribute much until his resignation in 1955.

Reflecting on it, it is hard to feel sorry for Churchill. How would you like to be so greatly admired 35 years after your death? Churchill has been etched into the history of Britain just as much as any king or queen that ever ruled. Blair will be forgotton some day, but Churchill? Never.

How I would love to have his wit and oratory skills.

 

Originally posted by jimbotosome+Sep 23 2005, 03:46 PM-->(jimbotosome @ Sep 23 2005, 03:46 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-spidge@Sep 23 2005, 12:24 AM
He did though become Prime Minister again in 1951 however he was then an old man of ill health and did not contribute much until his resignation in 1955.

Reflecting on it, it is hard to feel sorry for Churchill. How would you like to be so greatly admired 35 years after your death? Churchill has been etched into the history of Britain just as much as any king or queen that ever ruled. Blair will be forgotton some day, but Churchill? Never.

How I would love to have his wit and oratory skills.
[post=39337]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]
Speaking of Churchill, should have his own Topic. Might do that later.

 

It would have been a lot easier for FDR to plunge the US into war through these conspiracy theories had the fleet not been destroyed, and so many lives lost. Had the Japanese been intercepted short of Pearl Harbor, and defeated, the American people would have been just as angry, and their war effort in better shape.

The real American failures at Pearl Harbor were failures of imagination, which is why I'm not as hard on Kimmel and Short as the wartime and postwar investigations. Every indication was that the Japanese were going to strike south, which they did, and in fact, when they landed in Malaya -- before the attack on Hawaii -- they were greeted with British-Indian machine-gun fire. In the Philippines, as we know, blunders by MacArthur and Brereton resulted in the destruction of the air force the day after Pearl Harbor.

Gordon W. Prange and several other good books and writers have done a fine job of tearing up most of the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories.

Another thing about the conspiracy theories is that they fail to give the Japanese any credit for the situation -- they are usually depicted as being maneuvered by a crafty Roosevelt into launching the attack, which was not the case at all -- and the conspiracy theories started with guys like Harry Elmer Barnes, who were pre-war isolationistsand FDR-haters and post-war Holocaust deniers, so there is a common linking thread.

I give credit where it's due: the Japanese came up with a great plan, rehearsed and planned it meticulously, and carried it out. They fully expected the Americans to be on the alert, and were surprised themselves when they found they were not. I also assign blame, as Prange said, where it's due: "there is enough guilt to go around." Everybody failed in the American chain of command. I believe that Short and Kimmel were censured far too harshly. Yes, they had to be relieved, but they were demoted and tossed aside. That was wrong.

 

Jimbotosome
to reply to some of your last points:

Modern bombers like B-17s flying low at 2000 feet in tight formation could probably put a bomb into every square yard. From a saturation bombing like this on a ship the size of a carrier would probably get at least 20 direct hits if not more

This is possibly true, and I did read that the B17 was originally designed to attack naval forces that were threatening America. (Until at least the mid-thirties, US Naval policy assumed that a war in the Atlantic would be against Britain...so much for the "special relationship" that Blair talks about!) But there was never an opportunity to try this tactic in WW2 (except maybe the Tirpitz attacks). And there were not a large number of 17s at PH - less than squadron strength I believe - so carpet bombing would have been difficult and I still think the US would have had best results from dive- and torpedo-bombing.

Then the 8 battleships at Pearl would have sunk the remaining cruisers and destroyers. I do believe this would have completely satisfied the American public. They really were averse to another world war.

Well possibly; you know more than I do about the American public opinion at the time. I can see that a defeat would be more likely to turn opinion, but we can only speculate. But at what date did the Japs launch their attack on the Phillipines- was it immediately after PH? If they were attacking US territory, then whether or not PH was a success the US could hardly have remained neutral. But of course Roosevelt could not have been sure they would have attacked the Phillipines, so he may have calculated that only a defeat at PH would do.

There are a lot of parallels to that time and today. If you assume that Saddam Hussein with nuclear or chemical missiles would have been as dangerous as Hitler, you can see the importance of stopping him before he got out of control.

We probably ought not to use the Forum to discuss modern politics, though I know I started it because I couldn't resist my little comment! All I will say is that in the case of both Churchill/ Roosevelt and Bush/Blair, making the right decision is not enough - you do have to win! The mess we're in now is irrelevant to whether or not there were WMDs: whether or not the war was justified, winning the conventional war was always going to be peanuts compared with controlling the country afterwards.
If you really want to respond to this part of the discussion, it is probably best to PM me.

Adrian

 

I am of the belief that only Roosevelt and/or those purportedly involved could properly "debunk" a conspiracy. I don't know enough about the existing conspiracies (yet) to say they are or are not rational or believable. My point here is simply that conspiracies or not, something is wrong with the Pearl incident other than “crap happens”. I find it inexplicable; this was why I postulated that it boils down to the dichotomy. To think that defending a naval base never crosses the mind of the admiral in charge or the secretary of the Navy or the secretary of defense is a bit hard to swallow. When you are so paranoid of attack of an inland airfield that you park all the planes wingtip to wingtip, you have to think that ridding the rest of the base of the standard operating procedure of time destroyer screens of the island’s perimeter is a bit miffing.

That would be the equivalent of saying, I don’t care about my fleet of the security of my men, but I be darned if I will stand for saboteurs destroying a few inexpensive airplanes before the airfield guards kill them. With all the discussions that were going on about the Japanese planning to sneak attack Pearl, at what point would a man who rose through the ranks of the Navy like Kimmel to be responsible for making sure that does not happen, believe that removing the detection of an attack would be wise? Is there really anybody that believes that the loss of contact with the Task Force possibly coming his way was of no concern to Kimmel so much so that he would “stand down” base protection patrols that are standard procedure in full peacetime with no suspicion of a possible attack? So, when you really think about it, you have to assume either that Kimmel was that stupid to the point he should be considered a double agent for the Japanese, or that a conspiracy of a different kind existed. I don’t think there has ever been or ever could be a “debunker” that could address those kinds of circumstantial evidences. That screams conspiracy even though there is no suggestion of whom or what mighy be involved in the conspiracy that makes its potential debunkers have a “tough row to hoe”. There could be a hundred theories of conspiracies, all of them be wrong, all of them be properly debunked by critics, critics that had no desire to gain fame (unlike real humans), and you still have not addressed the probability that there must be a conspiracy to explain why the current explanation executes such assaults on one's common sense.

So, I am not saying this guy’s theory is right or wrong, or that guy’s theory is right or wrong, but rather that the facts of the case point to the need for a conspiracy to explain them. Bringing Roosevelt into it is like an investigation of a crime like murder where the first thing you do is determine the people that would possibly have a motive and the ability to get such things done, him being the prime suspect. As to why a conspiracy is really needed, I use an analogy of a person who is reputed to be constantly happy, outgoing and upbeat, who suddenly ends up shot to death in the back of the head, the weapon was missing from the scene, and it was ruled a suicide, you don’t have to know who killed the person or why to assume that the investigation is botched and it is far more likely to be a homicide. In fact you would probably suspect not only a homicide, but also a cover up with the investigation. You do you get my drift? To me the Pearl situation is that counterintuitive.

 

Originally posted by adrian roberts@Sep 23 2005, 08:21 PM
We probably ought not to use the Forum to discuss modern politics...

I agree Adrian, I wasn't trying to turn it into a political discussion.

Politics aside, I think Iraq is destined to end up in a civil war. That has nothing to do with anything the coalition has failed to do or has done wrong at all. I just think that since so much blood of Shiites and Kurds was shed, that it can't just be "ignored" especially with the disruption going on at the hand of these same people, which will serve as a fuse eventually. Once the coalition forces withdraw, I figure it is going to break into a civil war. I mean, think about it, if scads of your kin folks were cruelly murdered and tortured by a man with the help of others, could you simply "let it go", especially if they begin killing your people afterwards. I don't think just killing Hussein will be enough to satisfy the judgment that these people were denied under him. Strategically, I think we are doing the best thing possible in the situation, stabilize the majority government as much as possible and then bow out. The US didn't get democracy down without a major civil war. God knows that the UK had its share, over the centuries, to get where it is today, why would we think Iraq should be any different? Humans are humans no matter where they were born.

 

I believe, after reading Speer's book, that the Germans were a long, long way from atomic achievment. The americans would have beaten them easily and flattened Germany. Even if Britain was taken, which most likely would have occured if Hitler had wanted that, the US could have launched fron Turkey or Africa. Granted, Hitler would never surrender so we would have had to kill him with one of the atomic strikes.

As another poster brought up, I never understood why Hitler declared war on the US, especially after Japan basically screwed Germany by not attacking Russia.

Which, as I am typing this (Ill start another thread) could it not be said that the real turning point for the Axis might have been if Japan invaded Russia and not attacked the US. Then they could have carved up Asia, the middle east and africa. Britains fall would be immenant.

 

The Japanese did Fight the Soviets but the Japanese lost

In 1939 there was a border conflict and the Japanese got beaten and hade to sign a treaty

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/drea2/drea2.asp

I believe that If Germany would not have invaded the Soviet Unnion then Germany would have take GB, Sweden and Swizerland and I also believe developed the nuke long before America and nuked The Soviet Union, then invaded the Soviet Union, then taken care of China, India and Africa.
If America would have developed the bomb as well, this just left America alone and we would have a different cold war with the Axis controling a large part of the world

 

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 20 2005, 02:23 PM) [post=40317]The Japanese did Fight the Soviets but the Japanese lost

In 1939 there was a border conflict and the Japanese got beaten and hade to sign a treaty

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/drea2/drea2.asp

I believe that If Germany would not have invaded the Soviet Unnion then Germany would have take GB, Sweden and Swizerland and I also believe developed the nuke long before America and nuked The Soviet Union, then invaded the Soviet Union, then taken care of China, India and Africa.
If America would have developed the bomb as well, this just left America alone and we would have a different cold war with the Axis controling a large part of the world
[/b]


I dont think the Germans would have gotten the bomb before 1950. At least that is what Speer said. There wa s aperiod of a few weeks that Hitler got excited about the project. But like many other great ideas, he decided to change it or shift focus onto something else. At the time it was the V1 and V2 rocket. Speer argued that the payload of these missles was the equivelent of 6 bombers, whereas the german cities were getting hit by hundreds of bombers a night. Speer wanted to shift focus to new fighters. Either way the bomb was going to fall to the side.

 

Yes yes but this is a what if topic

What if Germany hade not attacked the Soviet Unnion

And if they hade not then there would have been no bombs on the cities and they would have hade so many more resources and men to build and to think

 

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 20 2005, 11:19 AM) [post=40333]What if Germany hade not attacked the Soviet Unnion

And if they hade not then there would have been no bombs on the cities and they would have hade so many more resources and men to build and to think
[/b]
I don't agree. Russia was a communist state. They spent the cold war copying every one of the free nations because there is no innovation in their nation where men are absolute slaves. The Soviet people were lifeless and treated like animals by their government. This made the German think of them as animals. Hitler cared more about the people in Russia than Stalin or Khrushchev did. Why did the Soviet people not have the courage to rise up against their government? Why did they prefer to live like animals? They had their understanding darkened by their fear of their own government. Nothing like giving all your hard earned money to the government who spends it on greed and waste. The Russian people were nothing to their government but a warm body for the enemy to shoot his ammo into so they can stay in power. This is why they had human waves. No other nations would have wasted humans like that. The Allies wouldn’t have wasted dogs like that much less humans. Send enough people to die and you will get a few through to shoot back. When you have massive dead, get more of the people and throw them at the problem until you run out of people or they run out of bullets. I can’t understand why the Russians celebrate their military past. Stalin should have been hung by his heels. Forget innovation Ping. Forget finding it in the USSR. If they couldn’t copy it they would steal it. If they couldn’t steal it they didn’t have it. Ever wonder why virtually all Soviet “innovations” look exactly like NATO equipment (except with poorer performance)? Ever wonder why they still had vacuum tube radio equipment in their aircraft even in the 1980s? I think if Russia had rolled over and let Hitler conquer them, they would have been better off; much less suffering. I can see why you are so cavalier about the death of 15 million citizens. It was probably a merciful that they didn’t have to suffer the cruelty in Russia.

 

<span style="color:#FF6666">---edited--- Do not make personal insults against members of this forum just because you disagree with them.</span>

The nazies actively exterminated 20 million civilians just because the existed
And no they wouldnt have been better under nazi rule that is just plain stupid


Hitler wanted to inslave every Soviet citesen use them as tools and once they were of no use just throw them away

Every women betwen 15-25 was killed raped or sent to brothels by the nazies every women over 25 was killed rapied sent to brothels or factories by the nazies

Every man was killed or sent to factories by the Nazies

<span style="color:#FF6666">---edited--- I repeat, do not make personal insults against members of this forum just because you disagree with them. If this continues we will take further action.</span>


They stole everything - that is just plain propaganda you must study more

 

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 21 2005, 11:58 AM) [post=40372]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>Every women betwen 15-25 was killed raped or sent to brothels by the nazies every women over 25 was killed rapied sent to brothels or factories by the nazies

Every man was killed or sent to factories by the Nazies
[/b]

EVERY woman? EVERY man? Can you prove this sweeping statement? Or is it just another of 'what you believe' so must be true statements? You are always telling others to get out there and study or read more books if they don't agree with you. Why is it wrong for the Germans or the Japanese to rape and enslave and execute people from the countries they conquer, but if it's the Soviets doing it that's okay because 'at least they can fight'?

Either be objective, or just don't bother.