Avatar, asymmetric warfare, and US contribution to WW2

[bobbymike]

Colonial-Marine - I have pondered "a clash of victors" after WWII and wondered how well the Red Army would have done being carpet bombed by 1000 bomber raids day and night, week in, week out (not even considering a nuke or two on Moscow).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Colonial-Marine - I have pondered "a clash of victors" after WWII and wondered how well the Red Army would have done being carpet bombed by 1000 bomber raids day and night, week in, week out (not even considering a nuke or two on Moscow).

You really should be pondering how well the Red Army would do against RAF and USAAF airpower because they certainly would not be able to produce a 1,000 bomber raid every day (as you indicate). And even if they could what would they bomb? By 1945 the strategic bombing campaign was mostly just re-burning previously burnt rubble in German towns and continuing that wouldn’t have too much effect on the Red Army. There would have been plenty fresh targets along the Soviet lines of communications back to Russia but the RAF and USAAF lacked the bases and still air range to prosecute any of these targets.

If the strategic bombers were used tactically as in France to support Overlord they would have much more limited effect against the Red Army than they did against the Germans. The anti-rail campaign would be limited in new targets (the theatre is Germany again) and the Red Army thanks to its truck fleet was less susceptible to rail damage than the Germans. Massed bombing of ground forces would be far more limited because they wouldn’t be attacking immobile defensive concentrations like in Normandy but mobile offensive spearheads. So it’s unlikely they could even get the bombers to a worthwhile target. Also in this kind of attack the bombers have to come in low and very tight making them highly vulnerable to interception. No problem if your air threat is the emasculated Luftwaffe but the VVS could put thousands of effective fighters into the air.

As to nuking Russia it is a very different prospect to nuking Japan. Any B-29 en route to Moscow would have to fight its way there over hundreds of miles of Russia rather than have a leisurely flight over the Pacific. Even if they could bomb Russian cities it would not destroy their economic capacity. Since this would be the only impact of a strategic campaign against the Soviet Economy (no city fire bombing, carrier strafing or submarine blockade) the sum total would be far lower than inflicted upon Japan. Besides the bombs would most likely be deployed in tactical attempts to stop the Red Army advance or open corridors for escape by surrounding western Allied units.
That is of course assuming they had any bombs to use. They weren’t available until August 1945 and the Red Army would have been able to launch at least one major 500-1,000 km advance against the West within this timeframe from the surrender of Germany. That is based on their ability to reconstitute and resupply their forces against the Germans. This means the western Armies would probably be pushed back beyond the Rhine before a handful of nukes were available. They would then be facing another Red Army offensive before Winter and those two nukes are unlikely to make much of an impact to stop this. In 1946 the US was able to build about 10 nukes but would be severely limited in their opportunities to use them because of their base/air range deficit against Russian strategic targets.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The problem you've got here is the language you choose to use. "Heavily enmeshed," "immense aid," "focus intently upon destroying Nazi Germany," and so on.

There is no problem with the language. There is a problem with trying to quantify inherently subjective adjectives: one person’s “heavy” is another’s “light” and so on.

But the facts remain. American foreign and defence policy was ‘dominated’ by concerns about Germany and the war in Europe before Pearl Harbour. To the extent that the US Government had ordered its military personnel into direct conflict against Axis forces months before a state of war existed. Not to mention America’s first peace time draft and unprecedented peace time expenditure on weapons and redirection of legacy military force from facing Asia to facing Europe.

All of this is a lot more than the myth of America being an introspective, bystander brought into the conflict by a chance assault. And it was all in good reason as Europe dominated by Germany was a major threat to America and its interests as well as morally unacceptable.

 

[Orionblamblam]

American foreign and defence policy was ‘dominated’ by concerns about Germany and the war in Europe before Pearl Harbour.

Largely due to far too many in the government and media thinking that the Soviet Union was neato-keen, rather than an evil regime every bit as bad as the Nazis. Were there any justice in history, the likes of Walter Duranty would be held in similar esteem to Joe Goebbels.

All of this is a lot more than the myth of America being an introspective, bystander brought into the conflict by a chance assault.

Actually, from my reading that's actually pretty accurate. *America* didn't want to get tied up in yet another European war. Some in the American government *did,* however. The government is not the country.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Largely due to far too many in the government and media thinking that the Soviet Union was neato-keen, rather than an evil regime every bit as bad as the Nazis. Were there any justice in history, the likes of Walter Duranty would be held in similar esteem to Joe Goebbels.

So why then didn’t American dislike of the Nazis evaporate when they colluded the German-Soviet pact? Americans disliked the Nazis for very good moral reasons: remembrance of German militarism and its cost in WW1 and dislike of their anti-Semitism. Considering that tens of millions of Americans had a personal stake in both issues it is no surprise there was so much dislike. Combined with Germany’s invasions and attacks on Poland, France and the UK dislike grew and grew. Popular opinion polls show by 1941 – before Pearl Harbour – that a majority of Americans were in favour of war with Germany.

As to moral judgements about the Germans and the Soviets; the later were not nice but they never implemented things as horrid as the Final Solution and the Hunger Plan. Lenin, Stalin and co may have been keen on eradicating economic classes including by murder and establishing long term police states but they never planned on murdering the entire populations of specific racial groups.

All this smacks of importing contemporary political preferences about the political left and the role of government into society into historical analysis.

 

[bobbymike]

AG - Could the B-29 get escorted by the greatest fighter plane, for its generation, ever built the P-51? Of course my strategic bomber comment does not mean I am excluding the overwhelming tactical airpower advantage the US/UK would have. German generals in Normandy could not move, as some described, "anywhere" during daylight hours and that included truck transport. Also Strategic Aripower could threaten Russian in depth something they never had to worry about with Germany. As well it would be interesting to see how Russia reacted to hundreds of thousands of battle hardened Marines landing on the Kamchatka Peninsula. Also we could have bombed the USSR from east and west as soon as we established landing sites in eastern Russia.

Now, of course, I am speculating that the US totally committed to war with the USSR. It is important to note US factories at the end of the war were out producing the rest of the world combined.

Would the war have been incredible bloody and devastating? Would the USSR fight well and bravely? Of course but as Patton (I think) said God favors the bigger battalion.

It is interesting how you argue. You simply say "that wouldn't work" and move on as if that statement proves it. Your sympathies clearly lie with the "peoples struggle". Any relation to Kim Philby or other members of the Cambridge Five

 

[Orionblamblam]

So why then didn’t American dislike of the Nazis evaporate when they colluded the German-Soviet pact?

You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that Americans in the 1930's could not simulataneously dislike a political movement, and not really want to travel halfway around the planet to fight someone else's war against that political movement. Keep in mind that Roosevelt in 1940 campaigned on a platform that in part promised to "not send American boys into any foreign wars."

Americans disliked the Nazis for very good moral reasons: remembrance of German militarism and its cost in WW1 ...

*EXACTLY.* Why the hell would Americans who remembered throwing away a lot of thier boys twenty years earlier in the mud of Europe for no recognizably good reason want to do the same thing *again?* In the 1930's, it was clear that the rest of Europe didn't really want to wage war against Germany. So why would the US?

and dislike of their anti-Semitism.

Sadly, "the Nazis don't like the Jews" was not the moral outrager one might wish it were.

As to moral judgements about the Germans and the Soviets; the later were not nice but they never implemented things as horrid as the Final Solution and the Hunger Plan. Lenin, Stalin and co may have been keen on eradicating economic classes including by murder and establishing long term police states but they never planned on murdering the entire populations of specific racial groups.

The Holodomir and the wiping out of the Kulaks alone put the Soviets in the same league with the Nazis. That the Commies might have been *somewhat* less racist than the Nazis does not really provide an arguement that they were better (or even less bad) people. The willingness to eradicate entire peoples in the service of some whackjob ideology would, I would hope, get the label of "EVIL" stamped on them in great big red letters.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It is interesting how you argue. You simply say "that wouldn't work" and move on as if that statement proves it.

No I don’t. I say “that wouldn’t work” and provide the factual reason why. Take for example the five points your raise in your last post. Each of them is based on factual ignorance and subsequently wrong inferences:

Could the B-29 get escorted by the greatest fighter plane, for its generation, ever built the P-51?

For the first half of the mission maybe but then the P-51’s range doesn’t match the B-29 so it has to continue on to Moscow, the Urals, etc without escort. The Twin Mustang would not be available until 1946 to cover this shortfall.

Of course my strategic bomber comment does not mean I am excluding the overwhelming tactical airpower advantage the US/UK would have. German generals in Normandy could not move, as some described, "anywhere" during daylight hours and that included truck transport.

The Soviets are not the Germans. There would be tactical airpower parity and huge battles between various fighters. The VVS were hounding the Germans as bad as the RAF/USAAF was so it would be interesting to seethe outcome of such a battle. Whatever it was it certainly would not be the same as what happened to the Germans who weren’t remotely in the game. So this is not a significant influencer to the outcome of the battle.

Also Strategic Aripower could threaten Russian in depth something they never had to worry about with Germany.

From what bases? With the exception of the B-29 the RAF/USAAF did not have bombers with enough range to hit strategic economic targets in the Soviet Union from their bases.

As well it would be interesting to see how Russia reacted to hundreds of thousands of battle hardened Marines landing on the Kamchatka Peninsula. Also we could have bombed the USSR from east and west as soon as we established landing sites in eastern Russia.

Probably a lot less than the Americans responded when the Japanese invaded the Aleutians. The Russian Far East had very little to do with the Soviet war economy and was as important to the rest of that country at that time as Alaska was to the USA at that time. Besides how are those American marines going to disengage from Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc to fight the Soviet Union. Which raises the question of what would happen in the Pacific if the US/UK went to war with the SU in May 1945? The Soviets would quickly ally with Japan and the crap would hit the fan in a very bad way for our attempts to finally kill off the Japanese Empire.

Now, of course, I am speculating that the US totally committed to war with the USSR. It is important to note US factories at the end of the war were out producing the rest of the world combined.

The relationships are more subtle than that. While the US’s economy was three times the size of the SU in 1945 the later had more that twice the proportion of GDP allocated to defence. Also unlike Germany the SU economy was self sustaining for raw materials and with much higher population coercion could sustain production indefinitely. And much more of the Soviet’s production was going into the type of weapons needed to win a war in Europe (no need to build a navy or strategic air force) and they did not have the complexity of trans ocean lines of communications. Of course at the crux of it in Europe in 45 the Soviets had far more available and sustainable combat power than the US and UK. Also as the occupier of Germany and facing continued warfare they could have been able to utilise more German capacity than in real post war history. So if the war extends into 46-48 the Soviets could modernise their air and sea forces with German wunderwaffens making things very uncomfortable for the Allies.

Would the war have been incredible bloody and devastating? Would the USSR fight well and bravely? Of course but as Patton (I think) said God favors the bigger battalion.

It was Napoleon. And the Soviets had by far the bigger battalions at this time.

Your sympathies clearly lie with the "peoples struggle". Any relation to Kim Philby or other members of the Cambridge Five

So by your rationale anyone who ever admired German war technology from 1945 was a neo-Nazi? Just trying to have a rational discussion here not motivated by my personal desires for anything if turning points in history were slightly different. In order to have displayed enough ’sympathy’ to meet your assessment I would have been saying things like “superior communist leadership” or “more efficient workers from non oppressed proletariat” and so on. I’m quite happy with the way WW2 and the Cold War turned out; the only change I would have made is that we won the wars sooner!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Sadly, "the Nazis don't like the Jews" was not the moral outrager one might wish it were.

Well it was for the Jews, they are Americans too! And the Polacks and so on... Especially after the fall of France there was a strong turn around in American public opinion and desire to defeat Germany by direct force if necessary. If the whole thing was such an impost then why weren’t there public protests and troops mutinying about being sent to Europe and so on?

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Abraham Gulber, I think you may be under the impression that the WWII Red Army was far more mechanized/motorized than it was in reality. While Soviet commanders certainly adapted, a skilled Allied commander could still use that to his advantage.

And presuming Moscow is nuked certainly the impact on the Soviet command structure would be initially devastating.

Regarding the B-29, what Soviet fighters would be effective at that altitude?

 

[bobbymike]

AG - Pure tendentiousness on your part. You cannot just take the facts that "fit" your argument and somehow say "there totally proven"

How about "as the only nuclear power I speculate the US triples Uranium production (I can infer from your post that the US could easily expand war production as they were using less of their GDP and they are still on total war footing) and starts bombing any large concentration of Soviet forces starting say 20 miles east of the front with nukes. I immediately transfer Curtis LeMay to Europe to turn the USSR into a smoking ash pile.

Besides this whole thread is pointless as you and I are 180 degrees in opposition. Disposition of anything we say cannot by definition happen under those circumstances.

I will openly admit one bias. I too am glad at the outcome of the Cold War because communism is a pure evil and resulted in millions of innocent people killed.

 

[Orionblamblam]

If the whole thing was such an impost then why weren’t there public protests and troops mutinying about being sent to Europe and so on?

Because *Germany* declared war on the *US* first. This is an important little detail.

In the summer of 2001, a whole lot of Americans wanted the Taliban taken out. But it took the events of Islam Outreach Day before beflore it became politically possible for the President to call out wholesale whoopass on 'em.

 

[Skybolt]

Right, and that was the single largest mistake Hitler made. The fact is so hot that the only alternate history fiction I know that has its Point Of Divergence at that moment in time (December 11th 1941) is an Italian one, that has never been translated in other languages AFAIK (Lucio Ceva "Asse pigliatutto", "The Ace (Axis) takes it all"). Seems that no American or British author has considered it as an acceptable basis for writing. Maybe too frightful.

 

[AeroFranz]

wow...i hadn't been following the thread for a couple of days, but how did we get from "vehicle design in Avatar" to "continuation of hostilities against Soviet union in 1946"?

Shall we move the posts to a suitable thread?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Right, and that was the single largest mistake Hitler made. The fact is so hot that the only alternate history fiction I know that has its Point Of Divergence at that moment in time (December 11th 1941) is an Italian one, that has never been translated in other languages AFAIK (Lucio Ceva "Asse pigliatutto", "The Ace (Axis) takes it all"). Seems that no American or British author has considered it as an acceptable basis for writing. Maybe too frightful.

Hmmm? Newt Gingrich's "1945" has the point of divergence being the Germans *not* decalring war on the US on Dec. 11 (Hitler having been in a minor plane wreck the day before and knocked unconscious; thus not able to give any stupid orders for a few weeks).

 

[Skybolt]

You're right, I'd completely canceled "1945". In the Italian novel the decision is conscious, on influence by Mussolini, that actually was VERY skeptical even in real life. In turn, Musssolini is influenced by an Italian general. Actually the POD is the existance of that general in that place at that time. But ANY general could have given that counsel. The decision was on the edge, a little push in a direction or in the other...

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Detangling the topic is too much work for now, so I'll just rename it.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Detangling the topic is too much work for now, so I'll just rename it.

You've set yourself up for a never ending challenge. What will you do when the thread migrates to "pop vs. soda" and the Great Chibi Uprising of 2024?

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Orionblamblam, did you make those by yourself, or did you find them somewhere on the web?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Orionblamblam, did you make those by yourself, or did you find them somewhere on the web?

Just cuz I'm unemployed doesn't mean I have *that* much free time...

 

[mz]

There's even a Putin calendar for 2010 here:
http://enjoys.it/stuff/putincalendar512.jpg

 

[flateric]

via otvaga2004.mybb.ru

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

There's even a Putin calendar for 2010 here:
http://enjoys.it/stuff/putincalendar512.jpg

Well, if he ever gets money issues, he can have a career as a Playgirl model...

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Orionblamblam, did you make those by yourself, or did you find them somewhere on the web?

Just cuz I'm unemployed doesn't mean I have *that* much free time...

I know how that feels...

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Flateric's post makes me think of this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Beyrle

 

[Orionblamblam]

Flateric's post makes me think of this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Beyrle

Who had one of the all-time best POW mugshots EVAR.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

The Red Martians may have laid eggs, but I doubt John Carter had sex issues...

Don't click if you're under 15, or if you're lucky enough to never have seen the Scary Movie films, or if you want your memory of Avatar be left untainted...

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/524391

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Abraham Gulber, I think you may be under the impression that the WWII Red Army was far more mechanized/motorized than it was in reality. While Soviet commanders certainly adapted, a skilled Allied commander could still use that to his advantage.

They were extremely mechanized, far more so than the Germans. The Red Army did not lack for a capacity to manoeuvre widely in their attacks on the Germans. While the Western Allies would offer more defensive mobility than the Germans they would have a lot less space to manoeuvre in because of the terrain of the battlefield which is not the same the Russians and Germans fought over. Further their lines of communications were far worse than the Germans so would have real problems in rapidly resupplying and reconstituting their forces after the initial Red Army offensive in May 45.

And presuming Moscow is nuked certainly the impact on the Soviet command structure would be initially devastating.

Regarding the B-29, what Soviet fighters would be effective at that altitude?

Even if Moscow was nuked – and it’s a much tougher achievement than nuking a Japanse city – it wouldn’t be until August 1945 after four months and two major operational offences in Western Europe by the Red Army. Further a 10 kt warhead is not going to wipe Moscow off the map. It is a very resilient city to such an air attack as it comprises heavy brick buildings with firewalls and an extensive underground bunker/subway network. Some famous land marks may be bent out of shape and tens of thousands of people killed but the Russians had absorbed far worse and would still go on.

AG - Pure tendentiousness on your part. You cannot just take the facts that "fit" your argument and somehow say "there totally proven"

How about "as the only nuclear power I speculate the US triples Uranium production (I can infer from your post that the US could easily expand war production as they were using less of their GDP and they are still on total war footing) and starts bombing any large concentration of Soviet forces starting say 20 miles east of the front with nukes. I immediately transfer Curtis LeMay to Europe to turn the USSR into a smoking ash pile.

I’m not speculating anything about capability. I am simply assessing what was available and what that stuff had done and how it would work if directed in a different direction. You are the one offering counter arguments made on pure speculative fantasy. Like mythical P-51s suddenly able to fly twice as far and uranium enrichment facilities suddenly able to work three times more efficiently just because the enemy is now Russia.

And if you knew anything about turning cities into smoking ash pile you would know that LeMay was very much the apprentice learning at the mighty feet of Harris. In fact LeMay had very little experience in actually fire bombing cities in May 45 only having done it a few times since the start of this USAAF campaign in Mar 45 and against far less resilient Japanese cities. The techniques used by the USAAF in the Pacific would not work against brick buildings in Europe. And more modern fire wall equipped cities like the Soviet ones would be like Berlin much more resilient to fire bombing than those crowded medieval heart cities in Western Germany.

Right, and that was the single largest mistake Hitler made.

Hitler declaring war on the USA was the only way to get Japan into the war. In the same way the British were extremely relieved to have the USA in the war the Germans were extremely relieved to have Japan in the war. But Hitler miscalculated that Japan’s attack on the USA would divert them away from Europe to enable him free rein to defeat the Soviets and then have some breathing space to build up German air and sea forces to fight the UK and USA.

As I argued before in this thread before it metamorphosed into Russia vs the West in 1945 even if the USA was uninterested in the European War back in ’39 as opposed to ’41 then the Allies would still win. As long as the USA maintains its cash and carry provisions for combatants in wars it isn’t engaged in the Allies can still beat the Germans. Even if the USA was running its own mobilization to fight the Japanese the Allies could still access enough American weaponry to defeat the Germans. Because thankfully both campaigns had very different weapons requirements and the Pacific would only reach the European scale of munitions when the Japanese homelands were to be invaded.

In the greater scheme of things American soldiers and airman did not make as much a difference to the outcome of the war in Europe as their supply of weapons and munitions. No amount of post war book and movie making can change this in the factual evidence though clearly and overwhelmingly it can change this in the minds of many casual observers.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Hitler declaring war on the USA was the only way to get Japan into the war.

Ummm... *what?*

Amazing. Apparently time machines had a greater involvement in WWII than I'd been led to believe.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Hitler declaring war on the USA was the only way to get Japan into the war.

Ummm... *what?*

Amazing. Apparently time machines had a greater involvement in WWII than I'd been led to believe.

LOL. Time machine? How about a diplomatic courier… Do you honestly think the Japanese did not attack the USA without German assurances they would widen the war against America. Anyway it is well documented in the wartime records of Germany and Japan that a deal was done and Hitler was ecstatic about it. People don’t go to war on a whim they usually spend at least a few days, weeks or months talking about it before hand.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Seems that no American or British author has considered it as an acceptable basis for writing. Maybe too frightful.

If you really want to ask a frightful for the American or British WW2 counter factual ask what would have happened if Germany never attacked the Soviet Union. Before Operation Barbarossa the Soviets were happily supplying the Germans with the raw materials they needed to supply their war effort. In return they received an every increasing slice of German advanced technology and as Molotov once quipped they were chalking up German and British losses in the same column.

So Germany would be strategically equipped to sustain their war economy in the long term and in ’41 were already redirecting their war industries to air and naval weapons with which to fight the UK-USA (since they thought they could conquer the SU before the end of year). Further they could have chased the UK out of the Middle East with far less force needed to invade the SU and as much of Africa as they could reach in time significantly strengthening their resource access while reducing that of the Allies. The Mediterranean would be an Axis lake and the difficulty of defending central and southern Africa a huge strain on the Allies. Any air-sea offensives in Europe and North Africa would have to face the full force of a Luftwaffe with years of recovery from the Battle of Britain rather than further attrition in the east.

This is the scary picture of counter factual WW2.

 

[bobbymike]

AG - Fire bombing wouldn't work on cities with brick buildings HELLO!!!! Dresden. Jeez dude you are all over the place. And LeMay learning at the feet of Harris til May of 45? What does that even mean LeMay was not a capable commander? He needed Harris to hold his hand all the way to the Pacific before then. Even if that was the case would not the conflict with Russia be after that date. By the way would the US/UK alliance not STILL have "Bomber" Harris?

As I said before we are 180 degrees in opposition this is my last post I can't take it anymore

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

I thought Hitler declared war on USA after Pearl Harbour... (Orionblamblam and Abraham has already started to discuss this.) Also, didn't Hitler want Japan to attack USSR, to force USSR into a two-front war? ???

BTW Abraham, you keep talking about the fire-bombing of German towns as if it greatly affected Germans will/ability to fight. Well, yes and no. It certainly didn't break German morale. Workers kept going to factories while their homes were reduced to rubble, because their jobs provided some regularity. However, the bombing of German industries and infrastructure and industries in occupied countries did partially slow down German war production, but it was largely ineffective, as some important targets were left partially unharmed, like the Ruhr dams and the ball bearing factories. Axis oil industry (including synthetic fuels plants) were only targeted 1944, and that operation was soon stopped to let the bombers be used to support ground troops before and after D-day. The efficiency of "carpet bombing" is being disputed as well.

Granted, night area bombing as well as day "precision" bombing forced Luftwaffe to use day fighters against bombers instead of using them to provide close support to Der Heer at the Eastern front, and night bombers that took resources from production of light/medium bombers. But RAF and USAAF did loose a lot of aircrafts and airmen in the process too. Bomber Command had the chance to make more crews survive by switching to Mosquitos or by getting rid of the tail gunners in the Lancaster and Halifax bombers, in order to get more speed, but didn't do it.

 

[Orionblamblam]

LOL. Time machine? How about a diplomatic courier…

A diplomatic courier with a time machine?

That's the only way to explain how Japan could be led into doing something by an event that hadn't happened yet.

Anyway it is well documented in the wartime records of Germany and Japan that a deal was done and Hitler was ecstatic about it.

People don’t go to war on a whim...

Most people aren't batshit insane like Hitler.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

AG - Fire bombing wouldn't work on cities with brick buildings HELLO!!!! Dresden. Jeez dude you are all over the place. And LeMay learning at the feet of Harris til May of 45? What does that even mean LeMay was not a capable commander? He needed Harris to hold his hand all the way to the Pacific before then. Even if that was the case would not the conflict with Russia be after that date. By the way would the US/UK alliance not STILL have "Bomber" Harris?

And do you have any idea how they got the fire storm to start in Dresden or the hundreds of other German cities that were fire bombed before hand? It wasn’t like LeMay and the B-29s dropping comparatively small loads of nothing but incendiaries onto Japanese cities. The RAF had to de-roof the German apartment blocks (HC cookies), destroy the water mains and disrupt the road structure (HE earth penetrators) and only then could they light the fires. And despite all that they couldn’t get fires to stay alight in Berlin and those cities with stronger firewall protection. The German cities that burned the best were those with medieval centres that like the Japanese cities were made mostly from wood and without the benefit of modern fire fighting knowledge. Now you assume you could just transfer this to the Soviet Union with a stroke of your keypad. How are you going to fire bomb Leningrad? It’s as impossible as fire bombing Venice: I’ve given you a big hint but do you even know why not? Moscow in ‘45 and most of the Ural cities were very modern, even more so than Berlin.

We are at 180 degrees I know what I talking about you don’t.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Seems that no American or British author has considered it as an acceptable basis for writing. Maybe too frightful.

If you really want to ask a frightful for the American or British WW2 counter factual ask what would have happened if Germany never attacked the Soviet Union. Before Operation Barbarossa the Soviets were happily supplying the Germans with the raw materials they needed to supply their war effort. In return they received an every increasing slice of German advanced technology and as Molotov once quipped they were chalking up German and British losses in the same column.

So Germany would be strategically equipped to sustain their war economy in the long term and in ’41 were already redirecting their war industries to air and naval weapons with which to fight the UK-USA (since they thought they could conquer the SU before the end of year). Further they could have chased the UK out of the Middle East with far less force needed to invade the SU and as much of Africa as they could reach in time significantly strengthening their resource access while reducing that of the Allies. The Mediterranean would be an Axis lake and the difficulty of defending central and southern Africa a huge strain on the Allies. Any air-sea offensives in Europe and North Africa would have to face the full force of a Luftwaffe with years of recovery from the Battle of Britain rather than further attrition in the east.

This is the scary picture of counter factual WW2.

Indeed. The question is whether USA would be able to launch B-36's with atom bombs in time before the Axis would invade USA.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

A diplomatic courier with a time machine?

That's the only way to explain how Japan could be led into doing something by an event that hadn't happened yet.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that Germany and Japan were two complete strangers until Japans attack on the USA at Pearl Harbour brought them together and that because Germany declared war on the USA after this attack that any collusion before hand was insignificant.

As to a desire for citation can I direct you to Ian Kershaw’s “Hitler: 1936-1945: Nemesis” which has all the appropriate citations to records of the German dealings with Japan in 1941 in the lead up to their attacks on the USA and UK including the initial German offer for a declaration of war (against the USA) following a Japanese spring offensive in early 1941 and the relief in Germany when the Japanese finally committed in November for war with the USA.

As to the few day delay between Pearl Harbour and the German declaration of war this was so Germany and Japan could finalise a new draft of their Tripartite Pact to govern their conduct as war allies. While focused on by social historians the German declaration of war had little effect on the actual strategy of the USA and UK. If they hadn’t declared war then no doubt the Americans would have some time in 1942 after one of the many U-Boat vs USN casus belli. But this is besides the fact it was German intriguing that brought Japan into the war against the foe they feared the most: the USA.

Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Slovakia also declared war on the USA on December 12, 1941 and I don’t recall anyone in the USA demanding their destruction for this act of perfidy… The war was governed by reasoned strategies on both sides aligning military force to what was seen to be the greatest threat.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

BTW Abraham, you keep talking about the fire-bombing of German towns as if it greatly affected Germans will/ability to fight. Well, yes and no. It certainly didn't break German morale. Workers kept going to factories while their homes were reduced to rubble, because their jobs provided some regularity.

Much of that is actually post war propaganda produced by the likes of Speer and USAAF to defend their inflated wartime reputations. The beginning of the heavy night fire bombing in 1943 smashed growth in the German war economy. Before the battles of Hamburg and the Ruhr the German economy was growing at over 5% per month (!) after that growth remained but plateaued. Extreme efforts by the Germans to move their economy into shelter underground or out of range of the strategic bomber force was not without cost to production and growth. Growth in certain areas of armaments production continued but mostly due to pre bombing campaign investment in additional infrastructure but certainly at a much reduced rate to what it would have if millions of people hadn’t been made homeless and thousands of factories destroyed by the fire bombing. From ‘44 onwards the day campaign started to have some effect but more to do with destruction of intercepting fighters and the cause and effect of Germany refocusing their air force onto air defence with inferior equipment. Later in ’45 the tactical air forces were within range of Germany and able to cause immense damage in the strafing campaign. This didn’t destroy German defences but it did emasculate it outside of close terrain where shelter was provided from precise air attack.

 

[Skybolt]

I think that attacking the USSR was part of the Hitler's political program and military planning while entering the war with the seafaring powers was not. The probability that Hitler decided not attacking the USSR were negligible compared to those of not attacking the US. Nazism was bounded and founded to destroy Communism and plus there is the not so secondary thing of the "inferior races", Lebensraum etc. Moreover, Hitler knew that Stalin intended to attack him and that the military prowness of the Soviets could only recover in time after the great purges. The sooner the better.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

I think that attacking the USSR was part of the Hitler's political program and military planning while entering the war with the seafaring powers was not. The probability that Hitler decided not attacking the USSR were negligible compared to those of not attacking the US. Nazism was bounded and founded to destroy Communism and plus there is the not so secondary thing of the "inferior races", Lebensraum etc. Moreover, Hitler knew that Stalin intended to attack him and that the military prowness of the Soviets could only recover in time after the great purges. The sooner the better.

I agree with most of what you say, though I'm not certain whether Stalin would attack Germany. Not that soon, anyway. He actually proposed that USSR would be part of the Axis!