I think Japan would never surrender because of bombing. Allies would must to make assault on main Japanese island in order to make them to capitulate, but price would be too high for invaders. Japanese casualty would be much higher, but I am sure the same moment Allies land on enemy soil Japan would drop all they have at them.
From what point was Germany doomed during WWII?
- Thread starter Tahuti
- Start date
I think Japan would never surrender because of bombing. Allies would must to make assault on main Japanese island in order to make them to capitulate, but price would be too high for invaders. Japanese casualty would be much higher, but I am sure the same moment Allies land on enemy soil Japan would drop all they have at them.
Japan was already negotiating with the Allies through the Soviet Union (before August 1945). Mind you, it wasn't just bombing that Japan went through, but intensive, sustained firebombing, the sort that can destroy a quarter of Tokyo overnight at negliglible cost, a complete naval blockade, crippling food, arms and fuel shortages and Soviet and Chinese offensives on the Mainland. Atomic bombs were dramatic, true, but by this point Alllied military power was already overwhelming.
jlvfr
King
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 982
I agree. If Britain had surrendered (in whatever terms) there wouldn't have been a Battle of the Atlantic, with all the waste of resources on sub fleets, Hitler wouldn't have kept 24 (!) divisions on Norway, the garrisons in the ocupied zone european countries would have been much smaller (no need to defend from invasion), there would have been no north africa invasion, all of the Luftwaffe and army would be diverted to Russia, the US would not get involved in any way 'till Japan attacked... and even then, without the UK as a base, it would have been impossible to interven in europe...
Not to mention that the inevitable Soviet invasions following their securing of Manchuria was a definite encouragement to surrender to the US (as previously mentioned it was highly preferred to have Americans occupying to Soviets).
But what happens if the British lose the Battle of Britain? The British give up an active air defense of the South while building up the RAF in the North and the RAF reappears when strong enough to resist or to counter and invasion, which promptly has its supply lines cut by the RN and it surrenders (barring any sort of immediately capitulation by the British).
I have yet to see any evidence that the Germans were in a position to break the British any time soon and the Americans were getting more and more involved all the time. Politically, economically, and militarily.
Of course, one of the arguments for Barbarossa was that breaking the Soviets was supposed to bring the British to the table since they lose their only significant potential ally on the continent.
While there were points in WWI where fairly minor changes could have had a decisive impact, I don't think the same is true for WWII, without completely changing the nature of the conflict I don't think you could get a significantly different outcome.
Best case result for Germany would probably have been the assassination of Hitler before Barbarossa and a negotiated peace with the new leadership. Of course, you still get into the question of what constitutes a German defeat of victory (i.e. would a status quo ante bellum count or even a loss of Austria and other occupied territories).
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Indeed. The very point was that German defeat was practically immenant from the moment Britain emerged victorious from battle of Britain.
Yes and no. Yes in that Germany planned Barbarossa early to convince the British that fighting was futile. No in that Germany was to invade Russia sooner or later anyway once Germany had the chance for it because of the concept of "Lebensraum" and sort of things.
Ofcourse if Hitler died before the USSR could be invaded, a German invasion of Russia would certainly be... less certain.
RE: Hiroshima and Nagasaki- even if it wasn't at least partially designed to ensure the Soviets didn't make further gains (and IIRC, that was one of the stated aims of it (although I'm likely wrong on that)), it was certainly a good opportunity for a show of force to discourage any Soviet attack on the West (whether or not that threat actually existed).
I recognize that. It is mainly that, so long as the Soviets were there the British saw an opportunity to win the war. Along with growing American support I don't see much motivation for the British to accept peace.
Perhaps more importantly it shows that even Hitler didn't think that they could force the British to terms.
Like I said, the best way to victory.
Ummm. They did?
Not in and of itself. And depending on who you ask, not at all. You have to add that they essentially had no navy left. Their air forces were reduced to not a great deal more than suicide missions. And their army was about to get its ass thrown off the Asian mainland just as soon as the Red Army was able to position itself for the job. And then the US would invade the home islands.
Ok, ok. IIRC, Hirohito basically had to force the junta to submit though. Would he have had the will to do that had two cities not been devastated?
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Germany was pretty much defeated by before they even invaded the USSR, like said in my opening post. In fact, should Germany had succesfully invaded the USSR, they might very well lose more than they would gain. Hitler's generals repeatedly warned him of the potentional costs of occupying the what then would used to be the Western USSR.
The fact that Hitler considered all the inhabitants of the USSR - with the exception of Baltic and Turkic peoples - to be Untermenschen didn't help much either.
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 12,171
ı would say the the moment the German generals thought bringing up the rabble of the streets to have a convenient cover for skirting around Versailles ; they could have done it by themselves. True they would probably end up the same size the country is today and not a true world hegemon but all those millions would not have died either . Or Stalin might have attacked and defeating the attack , Germany would have a shot at being a true world hegemon .
for Turkic people , let me assure without any proof , that we would be third to go , after the Jews and the Slavs .
for Turkic people , let me assure without any proof , that we would be third to go , after the Jews and the Slavs .
Removing Hitler potentially removes one of the big pushes to invade the Soviet Union.
Further, if the Nazi leadership could be removed (even just Hitler himself) a negotiated peace with Britain may have become possible. Likely requiring a return to pre-Anschluss borders and possibly some further concessions, though.
How Hitler was removed and who took over would also be important.
Given that even Tom Cr...er... Von Stauffenberg wanted a Greater Germany that included the vast majority of it's gains in Central and Eastern Europe the likelihood of such an agreement is small. They were willing to withdraw from France, but there was a desire to continue the war on the eastern front, and to retain Austria, Bohemia, and Poland.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
I mean, the entire island chain was about to starve to death. You could argue the leadership would be willing to let that happen in the name of honor, but if that's the case -- why did they surrender after a measly few hundred thousand died?
There is also the question of how much of an impact the Soviet invasion of Manchuria had in between the two atomic bombings. Particularly the threat of a Soviet invasion of the home islands and the removal of the channel the Japanese were atempting to use for a negotiated peace.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Britain alone was economically stronger than Germany (in terms of war economy)? Are you sure about that? Even the USSR alone wasn't economically stronger than Germany. For example in 1943 the German industry was larger than Soviet - it employed 10,5 million workers while Soviet industry only 9 million workers.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I can't speak for overall, but I know the UK was superior in fighter production. Germany could literally not have lost a single plane in the Battle of Britain and the UK would still be slowly gaining the advantage (the fact that they did lose a lot of planes makes it even more lopsided). Also, British industry was up north and out of the reach of German planes. German industry was getting bombed all the time.
Plus, the United States' production was superior to all. If they joined the war or stepped up lend lease, that would certainly push the UK over the edge.
Plus, the United States' production was superior to all. If they joined the war or stepped up lend lease, that would certainly push the UK over the edge.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
I think there could be more problems with replacing the number of experienced pilots that became casualties (either killed or so seriously disabled that couldn't return to service). But here apparently Britain also had an advantage over Germany because some 20% of all pilots that participated in the battle of Britain were foreigners.
However, of course large part of those foreign pilots - namely those from British colonies and dominias - could be there mainly thanks to the so called British Commonwealth Air Training Plan. Britain had been training pilots from her colonies and dominias - for example Canada, Australia, etc. - and participating in development of their Air Forces.
Anyway - those reliable foreigners were increasing the British potential of trained pilots by ca. 1/4 (1878 + 489 foreigners).
On the other hand, Germany probably could not rely to the same large extent (+ 1/4 more) on potential of her allies.
=============================
Number of Allied pilots that actively participated in the battle of Britain:
British - 1878 (of them 348 died)
Poles - 141 (of them 29 died)
Canadians - 88 (of them 20 died)
Czecho-Slovaks - 88 (of them 8 died)
New Zealanders - 73 (of them 11 died)
Belgians - 26 (of them 6 died)
Australians - 21 (of them 14 died)
South Africans - 21 (of them 9 died)
Free French - 13
Irelanders - 8
Americans - 7 (of them 1 died)
South Rhodesians - 2
Palestinians - 2
Total: 2367 (of them 446 died)
============================
Probably Germans had even more problems with irrecoverable losses in pilots. Apart from killed and seriously wounded, while fighting over British territory, almost every shot down German pilot who had to jump with a parachute, would become a Prisoner of War. Allies didn't have this problem - any Allied pilot landing with a parachute on British soil would return back to service if aircrafts were available.
So it seems that both manpower and equipment situation was more favourable for RAF than Luftwaffe.
Situation would be different if RAF was on the offensive, fighting over Germany.
Yeah, but AFAIK Britain had no any great successes in destroying German war industry before the USA joined to these operations.
And bomb raids against the German industry were extremely costly for the Allies in the first period of the war.
Also despite the bombings German industrial production was constantly growing at least until early 1944.
However, of course large part of those foreign pilots - namely those from British colonies and dominias - could be there mainly thanks to the so called British Commonwealth Air Training Plan. Britain had been training pilots from her colonies and dominias - for example Canada, Australia, etc. - and participating in development of their Air Forces.
Anyway - those reliable foreigners were increasing the British potential of trained pilots by ca. 1/4 (1878 + 489 foreigners).
On the other hand, Germany probably could not rely to the same large extent (+ 1/4 more) on potential of her allies.
=============================
Number of Allied pilots that actively participated in the battle of Britain:
British - 1878 (of them 348 died)
Poles - 141 (of them 29 died)
Canadians - 88 (of them 20 died)
Czecho-Slovaks - 88 (of them 8 died)
New Zealanders - 73 (of them 11 died)
Belgians - 26 (of them 6 died)
Australians - 21 (of them 14 died)
South Africans - 21 (of them 9 died)
Free French - 13
Irelanders - 8
Americans - 7 (of them 1 died)
South Rhodesians - 2
Palestinians - 2
Total: 2367 (of them 446 died)
============================
Probably Germans had even more problems with irrecoverable losses in pilots. Apart from killed and seriously wounded, while fighting over British territory, almost every shot down German pilot who had to jump with a parachute, would become a Prisoner of War. Allies didn't have this problem - any Allied pilot landing with a parachute on British soil would return back to service if aircrafts were available.
So it seems that both manpower and equipment situation was more favourable for RAF than Luftwaffe.
Situation would be different if RAF was on the offensive, fighting over Germany.
Yeah, but AFAIK Britain had no any great successes in destroying German war industry before the USA joined to these operations.
And bomb raids against the German industry were extremely costly for the Allies in the first period of the war.
Also despite the bombings German industrial production was constantly growing at least until early 1944.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
So, in figuring this out, how is the United States factored in? I figured, at a minimum, stepped up lend lease. Germany certainly couldn't outproduce both. Eventually, the sheer amount of material would allow the western forces to land somewhere. At a minimum, as bloody a campaign as it was, I don't think the allies would have been bogged down in Italy forever. If they were, they could still try a D-Day or move to Southern France. Germany could not guard the entire coast of France, Belgium, and Spain.
Similar threads
