History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VIII

[Lexicus]

With the British blockade, eventually Europe is starved into submission. Whether Britain and the Soviets might come to some sort of negotiated agreement with Nazi Germany, I can't begin to guess.

The Soviet Union would never have come to a negotiated settlement with Nazi Germany, and I can't imagine Britain doing so either. The Germans came too close to gutting the USSR for Stalin to allow an independent Germany, and the British knew since the betrayal of the Munich agreement that making peace with Hitler would only give him a breathing space for further war.

The war would have taken longer without the US helping, but the end result would have been the same: Germany in ruins occupied by Allied troops. Almost certainly the demarcation between Soviet and Western allied occupation would be much further west without the US involved in the ETO.

 

[Ajidica]

The Soviet Union would never have come to a negotiated settlement with Nazi Germany, and I can't imagine Britain doing so either. The Germans came too close to gutting the USSR for Stalin to allow an independent Germany, and the British knew since the betrayal of the Munich agreement that making peace with Hitler would only give him a breathing space for further war.

The war would have taken longer without the US helping, but the end result would have been the same: Germany in ruins occupied by Allied troops. Almost certainly the demarcation between Soviet and Western allied occupation would be much further west without the US involved in the ETO.

I dunno. Without direct American involvement there is no equivalent to the D-Day landings and the 'arsenal of democracy' doesn't mobilize as completely as it did. If the war drags on to the late 1940s with no end in sight I'm not sure how long the Soviet-Commonwealth alliance would last. Without America's open checkbook, Britain would start to run low on money for funding anything other than limited war and a naval blockade. On the Eastern Front, without American logistical support, the Soviets continue to lack reliable trucks and support machinery, inhibiting their ability to make a clean breakthrough. If the Eastern Front stalemates into a meatgrinder and the Soviets perceive Britain as being unwilling to do anything beyond hiding on their island, will Soviet leadership continue to throw men into the meatgrinder?
We are talking a decade of apocalyptic warfare, the resources of the Soviet Union and the Commonwealth are vast but not unlimited. Even in the OTL the Soviet Union was scraping the bottom of the barrel for manpower by the time 1945 rolls along.

 

[Hygro]

Wartime economies are specifically designed to take money out of the equation. So unless that American money was used to buy crucial imports from 3rd parties who wouldn’t take British money at any value, it’s not money we’re talking about, but physical constraints.

 

[Cutlass]

We are talking a decade of apocalyptic warfare, the resources of the Soviet Union and the Commonwealth are vast but not unlimited. Even in the OTL the Soviet Union was scraping the bottom of the barrel for manpower by the time 1945 rolls along.

That applies to Germany as well. Whose resources were even smaller.

 

[Ajidica]

Wartime economies are specifically designed to take money out of the equation. So unless that American money was used to buy crucial imports from 3rd parties who wouldn’t take British money at any value, it’s not money we’re talking about, but physical constraints.

As David Edgerton noted in Britain's War Machine, if Britain had to pay for America stuff on a cash-and-carry basis or standard financing terms, they would have hit a severe credit crunch around 1942. Britain came very close to losing American credit during the First World War (Adam Tooze, The Deluge). This WW2 scenario assumes America does not get involved in the war, and arguably the only way for Germany to not decide 'screw it' and start torpedoing American ships is for America to not start up the Lend-Lease program. Per Wiki:

After the Fall of France during June 1940, the British Commonwealth and Empire were the only forces engaged in war against Germany and Italy, until the Italian invasion of Greece. Britain had been paying for its materiel with gold as part of the "cash and carry" program, as required by the U.S. Neutrality Acts of the 1930s, but by 1941 it had liquidated so many assets that its cash was becoming depleted.[7]
...
During this same period, the U.S. government began to mobilize for total war, instituting the first-ever peacetime draft and a fivefold increase in the defense budget (from $2 billion to $10 billion).[8] In the meantime, Great Britain was running out of liquid currency and asked not to be forced to sell off British assets. On December 7, 1940, its Prime Minister Winston Churchill pressed President Roosevelt in a 15-page letter for American help.[nb 2][9] Sympathetic to the British plight, but hampered by public opinion and the Neutrality Acts, which forbade arms sales on credit or the lending of money to belligerent nations, Roosevelt eventually came up with the idea of "lend–lease". As one Roosevelt biographer has characterized it: "If there was no practical alternative, there was certainly no moral one either. Britain and the Commonwealth were carrying the battle for all civilization, and the overwhelming majority of Americans, led in the late election by their president, wished to help them."[10] As the President himself put it, "There can be no reasoning with incendiary bombs."[11]

Based solely on its internal Commonwealth economy, Britain could have sustained a blockade of Germany in material terms near-indefinitely. If Britain wanted American equipment and production, it either needed to pony up cash and assets, or wait until Lend Lease started up.

That applies to Germany as well. Whose resources were even smaller.

With reduced British pressure and no American pressure, the Nazis would have been better able to make use of the resources of France and the Low Countries, which could help them last a bit longer, but not forever. As long as the British naval blockade remained in place and unless the Red Army collapsed allowing the Nazis to consolidate their control over Ukraine, eventually the Nazis would have to confront the inescapable conclusion Europe consumed more calories of food than it could produce.
Who would agree to a negotiated peace first - Nazis through starvation, the Soviet Union through manpower exhaustion and devastation, or Britain through bankruptcy and war weariness - is to my mind an open question.

 

[caketastydelish]

How did the Japanese react to Germany and all other European axis powers unconditionally surrendering to the allies? Did this make them assume that the war was lost for them as well? Did this make them suspect the Soviet Union would attack them now that their hands were free?

 

[r16]

the Japanese were trying for peace since the Marianas fight , where they lost a lot of planes and islands within "range" of home islands . That should be about June 1944 . They had gone to war with a specific intention to conquer enough territory to deny airbases to Americans within B-29 range and whatever , soo it ws their understanding that the war was lost .

 

[caketastydelish]

Some Native Americans went on to Europe, the Europeans took with them. Are there any written accounts of what those native americans thought of europe?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Google Navajo Code talkers. I don't know if they were used in Europe though. Native Americans did fight in Europe. I know tribes in NM have stories and are quite proud of the WW2 veterans.

 

[danjuno]

the Japanese were trying for peace since the Marianas fight , where they lost a lot of planes and islands within "range" of home islands . That should be about June 1944 . They had gone to war with a specific intention to conquer enough territory to deny airbases to Americans within B-29 range and whatever , soo it ws their understanding that the war was lost .

I remember reading somewhere that the Cabinet was wavering between holding out hope for a negotiation mediated by the USSR and accepting the demand for surrender issued at Potsdam. Interesting how things would shake out if no nukes are dropped before the Soviet invasion of Manchuria if this is the case.

 

[r16]

most of my understanding of the situation would be the Wikipedia article indeed .

 

[Kyriakos]

I remember reading somewhere that the Cabinet was wavering between holding out hope for a negotiation mediated by the USSR and accepting the demand for surrender issued at Potsdam. Interesting how things would shake out if no nukes are dropped before the Soviet invasion of Manchuria if this is the case.

I have watched interviews of people theoretically in the know (such as mathematician Freeman Dyson, who at the time iirc was working with the british gov), who claim that the only reason the japanese capitulated was the imminent invasion by Russia. They - according to Dyson - wouldn't care about the atomic bombs, but they wanted to avoid territories going to Russia after peace was signed.

 

[innonimatu]

The Soviet Union would never have come to a negotiated settlement with Nazi Germany, and I can't imagine Britain doing so either. The Germans came too close to gutting the USSR for Stalin to allow an independent Germany, and the British knew since the betrayal of the Munich agreement that making peace with Hitler would only give him a breathing space for further war.

The war would have taken longer without the US helping, but the end result would have been the same: Germany in ruins occupied by Allied troops. Almost certainly the demarcation between Soviet and Western allied occupation would be much further west without the US involved in the ETO.

While we easily say this now, and looking back and checking the archives about what was going on in the capitals confirms it - it's worth noting that people around the world at the time kept worrying about (or hoping for) separate peaces with Germany. And it took diplomatic efforts and goodwill to forge an alliance that wouldn't break until the end of the war.

If you can, try to read copy of Eric Blair's wartime diaries. OR all his diaries. Very interesting and you may find them surprising in several points. People didn't think the same way back then.

 

[Leyrann]

Meta question: I'm writing a fantasy work set in the "real" world, and for the history worldbuilding, I figured I'd ask the knowledgeable people over on this site (specifically, I'm looking for important historical or semi-historical women, mostly those who meet certain conditions). Does that best go in this subforum, the offtopic subforum, or somewhere else entirely?

 

[Ajidica]

Might as well ask here, though I'd also recommend googling 'famous historical women' or 'famous medieval women'. That would be a good start if you are just looking for people and their life.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Meta question: I'm writing a fantasy work set in the "real" world, and for the history worldbuilding, I figured I'd ask the knowledgeable people over on this site (specifically, I'm looking for important historical or semi-historical women, mostly those who meet certain conditions). Does that best go in this subforum, the off topic subforum, or somewhere else entirely?

You can start a thread in the regular Off topic forums. It has more viewership than this one. I would expect you would get enough replies to get yougoing.

 

[Absolution]

Was it the Christianisation of the Rus that gave the title "prince" to the monarch of Kiev?

Is it likely that he was still reffered to as Khagan in the Christian world up until the Christianisation?
Is it likely that he was referred to as Prince in the Christian world before the Christianisation?

Did Christians even use the titles of Kings and Princes to refer to pagan rulers of their time?

 

[red_elk]

Was it the Christianisation of the Rus that gave the title "prince" to the monarch of Kiev?

Is it likely that he was still reffered to as Khagan in the Christian world up until the Christianisation?
Is it likely that he was referred to as Prince in the Christian world before the Christianisation?

Did Christians even use the titles of Kings and Princes to refer to pagan rulers of their time?

Rulers in Kiev and Novgorod were referred as princes (knyaz) before Christianization as well. Rurik, Oleg and Igor.
Khagan title was used by Mongol and Turkic tribes, not by the Slavs, even during the Yoke time.
The King wasn't used in Rus at all IIRC, may be with exception of Daniil of Galicia.

 

[Absolution]

Rulers in Kiev and Novgorod were referred as princes (knyaz) before Christianization as well. Rurik, Oleg and Igor.
Khagan title was used by Mongol and Turkic tribes, not by the Slavs, even during the Yoke time.
The King wasn't used in Rus at all IIRC, may be with exception of Daniil of Galicia.

If they were not granted the title "prince" by the Christians but used it before -
Then why dis they reduce themselves to a lower level of monarchy?
Who was the greater overlors in their system?

In my understanding, the title of prince was given when there was a superior king around...

 

[red_elk]

If they were not granted the title "prince" by the Christians but used it before -
Then why dis they reduce themselves to a lower level of monarchy?
Who was the greater overlors in their system?

In my understanding, the title of prince was given when there was a superior king around...

At early stages, princes were just local feudals, there was no established hierarchy of nobles. Sometimes they were even elected IIRC.
Later the hierarchy appeared and the titles became inherited similarly like it was in Europe.
The overlord was called Grand Prince (Velikiy Knyaz), later after 15-th century Tsar, then Emperor, then Secretary General