Where It All Could Have Been Different -- WWII

[yevaud]

A concept I have always found fascinating is the idea of what battles and events that could have occurred during WWII to completely change the outcome from how we know it.  (So fascinated, in fact, that I have been patiently writing a book on the subject for the last several years).

Some possibilities:

1.    Japan invades and takes Hawaii, forcing the US fleet to base itself along the West Coast.

2.    Germany finishes off the Brits at Dunkirk.

3.    Erich Von Manstein successfully beats the Russians at Kursk.

And so on.  Any thoughts on both the battles/events, and what the possible (altered) outcomes might be?

Btw, the book is tentatively entitled "Five Battles," and is about Guadalcanal, El Alamein, Torch, Stalingrad, and Midway.  At the beginning of those five battles, it remained quite in doubt whether the allies could actually win the war - by the end of them, there was little doubt at all.

Differential Diagnosis:  "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are."

[silylene old]

Replying to:

A concept I have always found fascinating is the idea of what battles and events that could have occurred during WWII to completely change the outcome from how we know it.  (So fascinated, in fact, that I have been patiently writing a book on the subject for the last several years).Some possibilities:1.    Japan invades and takes Hawaii, forcing the US fleet to base itself along the West Coast.2.    Germany finishes off the Brits at Dunkirk.3.    Erich Von Manstein successfully beats the Russians at Kursk.And so on.  Any thoughts on both the battles/events, and what the possible (altered) outcomes might be?Btw, the book is tentatively entitled "Five Battles," and is about Guadalcanal, El Alamein, Torch, Stalingrad, and Midway.  At the beginning of those five battles, it remained quite in doubt whether the allies could actually win the war - by the end of them, there was little doubt at all.
Posted by yevaud

I will ignore the German side of the war for now, assume the Allies win that, and focus on Japan.

Basically, the US could have lost Hawaii and Midway, and we would still win the war in the Pacific.  The only difference is that the war would've taken at most 1-2 years longer to win.  the win is absolutely inevitable given the overwhelming advantage in manufacturing capability of the US, the development of long range bombers (B-29 and very soon the B-36), and the development of atomic bombs, the inability of the Japanese to effectively use their submarines, and the movement of Soviet land forces to the east.

War games played with with the starting assumptions of the US losing both Hawaii and Midway still inevitably have the Allies winning handily.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.

[yevaud]

Replying to:

War games played with with the starting assumptions of the US losing both Hawaii and Midway still inevitably have the Allies winning handily.

Posted by silylene

If Yamamoto had brought forward his force of Battleships and Cruisers in a timely fashion, there may well have been little the US could have done, except retreat back to Hawaii.  Also, one of those "elusive" parts of a battle - Friction - came into play, with Nagumo being basically undecided on what role to conform his air wings to: ground attack or air defense.  Had he played it out in the A/D role, with Yamamoto bringing up his force to invade Midway, events would have panned out quite differently.  Allied air could not have gotten through, while the invasion would have been conducted to take Midway - and pot odds were that the Japanese would win.

Differential Diagnosis:  "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are."

[10_stone_5]

Replying to:

2.    Germany finishes off the Brits at Dunkirk.
Posted by yevaud

More and more, to me, this was the key. British troops escaping entrapment at Dunkirk. Pop culture reference -- There is an interesting segment in the film Atonement which fictionalizes this event.

[brandbll]

I have to agree with Siylene.  I think that even had Japan taken Hawaii, the Allies would have still eventually won the war.  Who knows, had the Japanese taken Hawaii right off the bat FDR probably would have made that a priority over the European theatre.  Even if we didn't do that and stuck to the plan, as he said, the Russians were coming.  Which personally i think is the real interesting part of the situation is how things today would have been different had Russia invaded part of Japan.

I'll address some of the other scenarios later when i have more time to think about them.  But one of the interesting scenarios i tend to think about is if Hitler would have actually listened to Rommel and committed more of his armor units to Normandy.

You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!

[yevaud]

In the long run, Silylene is correct, but at what cost?  Hawaii is a chokepoint for naval operations in the Pacific.  Losing it would mean the US fleet would have to be based along our West coast, and the amount of territory to be covered is vastly increased.  We'd have taken some real hits before we gained the advantage.

One of the things that fatally screwed the Japanese was their "Conquerer Syndrome."  That is to say, they did far better than they'd expected, from December 41 - March 42, and as such decided to expand their conquests down to Gudalacanal and all of New Guinea.  In so doing, they left insufficient forces to hold their defensive perimiter as Strategically planned, as well as opening their naval forces to attrition by the hard-pressed Allies.  This really helped us, and I mean really helped.  Had they not done so, they would have been a much tougher nut to crack.

Differential Diagnosis:  "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are."

[silylene old]

Replying to:

In the long run, Silylene is correct, but at what cost?  Hawaii is a chokepoint for naval operations in the Pacific.  Losing it would mean the US fleet would have to be based along our West coast, and the amount of territory to be covered is vastly increased.  We'd have taken some real hits before we gained the advantage.......
Posted by yevaud

That's exactly my point.  Had Japan taken Hawaii, Midway, even the Aleutians it would have only meant that they would have been defeated in 1946  (or maybe 1947 if the Japanese  strategic execution and homeland defense was both excellent and lucky).  Their defeat would have been delayed in all likelyhood about one year or less.

US manufacturing would have overwhelmed them with too many carriers and carrier based planes, subs, battleships, long range bombers....and then in late 1945 from bases in Alaska or Russia we would have flown B-29's with atom bombs, and if Japan had somehow endured long enough, then the B-36 with atom bombs.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.

[yevaud]

Replying to:

That's exactly my point.  Had Japan taken Hawaii, Midway, even the Aleutians it would have only meant that they would have been defeated in 1946  (or maybe 1947 if the Japanese  strategic execution and homeland defense was both excellent and lucky).  Their defeat would have been delayed in all likelyhood about one year or less.US manufacturing would have overwhelmed them with too many carriers and carrier based planes, subs, battleships, long range bombers....and then in late 1945 from bases in Alaska or Russia we would have flown B-29's with atom bombs, and if Japan had somehow endured long enough, then the B-36 with atom bombs.

Posted by silylene

Remember that they would have had (with the exception of the Aleutians) to cross thousands of miles of Pacific to do so.  And Hawaii in the Japanese' hands would operate exactly as it did for us, only in reverse.

Which leads us to the odd scenario of us possibly having to invade Hawaii, or if that seemed too difficult, nuking it once we had them available.

Differential Diagnosis:  "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are."

[brandbll]

Replying to:

That's exactly my point.  Had Japan taken Hawaii, Midway, even the Aleutians it would have only meant that they would have been defeated in 1946  (or maybe 1947 if the Japanese  strategic execution and homeland defense was both excellent and lucky).  Their defeat would have been delayed in all likelyhood about one year or less.US manufacturing would have overwhelmed them with too many carriers and carrier based planes, subs, battleships, long range bombers....and then in late 1945 from bases in Alaska or Russia we would have flown B-29's with atom bombs, and if Japan had somehow endured long enough, then the B-36 with atom bombs.
Posted by silylene

Yeah i was actually going to point the out alleutians to Yev when he stated that we would have to move back to the West coast.  Although i'm not the smartest guy when it comes to naval endeavours so i might be wrong there.  I think it would be a different story if Japan would have captured Hawaii along with those fuel reserves we had there that they neglected to destroy in Pearl Harbor.

You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!

[silylene old]

Replying to:

Remember that they would have had (with the exception of the Aleutians) to cross thousands of miles of Pacific to do so.  And Hawaii in the Japanese' hands would operate exactly as it did for us, only in reverse.Which leads us to the odd scenario of us possibly having to invade Hawaii, or if that seemed too difficult, nuking it once we had them available.
Posted by yevaud

Let's suppose Hawaii and the Aleutians were lost, and it is mid-1945 and and a US nuke-loaded bomber attack on a Japanese mainland city is desired.  Attack from Russia or inland China still remained as an option.  Also B-29's could have operated from mainland Alaska, completed their bombing mission, and then land in Russia or China afterwards.  The B-29's raids could have been protected in flight by the massed fighters from the huge US carrier fleet (which would have been available in 1945-1946) simply by staging the carriers in the appropriate location.

And, if you waited one more year, B-36's (1947) could have started from mainland Alaska and landed back in mainland Alaska.  B-36's flew at such high altitude that they were completely immune from the fighters and antiaircraft guns that Japan had available or had on the drawing boards during WW2.

This all is a moot issue, because the US would have had built dozens of carriers and their combat groups, and had scores of subs operant by mid-1945.  Even considering enhanced US naval war losses, I expect that Hawaii, Midway and other significant islands would have been recaptured.  The only difference is that the Pacific war would have lasted at most a year (maybe two years?), depending how many a-bombs and naval lossses Japan was willing to endure.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.

[newsartist]

The Hawaii-Mainland jump is the largest in the Pacific. The Japanese would have little advantage to use the islands as bases, beyond that of submarine basing.

Looking at it from this side; the loss of Hawaii would have been countered by mid-air refueling at a date earlier than we actually saw it employed. The technology was already there before WW-2, and only the war prevented refueling by airliners over the Atlantic.

Against this limited advantage, the Japanese would have had a massive supply problem.

[qzzq]

Replying to:

3.    Erich Von Manstein successfully beats the Russians at Kursk.
Posted by yevaud

By not taking Moscow in the first push in '41 the faith of the Germans was pretty much sealed. I doubt a victory at Kursk would have changed much. It would have bought them some time, yes, but the Soviets were outproducing them by quite a margin in 1943. And Bozo the Clown was still in charge and would have screwed it up anyway.

 Now, had Hitler been killed in the early stages of the war and been replaced with someone more modest and rational...well, that could have seriously changed things. 

*edit* With apologies to Bozo the Clown 

 

***

[yevaud]

That's where politics rears it's ugly head.  Stalin had been muttering quite seriously about achieveing a separate peace with Germany.  Had Kursk been a German victory, he might well have.  Victory at Kursk would have eliminated the Soviet Armored Strategic reserve (hence ending Societ Operations for the rest of 1943) and preserved Germany's - and if there was anything the Soviets had a healthy respect for, it was German Armored Operations in the hands of a master like Von Manstein.

Differential Diagnosis:  "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are."

[qzzq]

Replying to:

That's where politics rears it's ugly head.  Stalin had been muttering quite seriously about achieveing a separate peace with Germany.  Had Kursk been a German victory, he might well have.

Victory at Kursk would have eliminated the Soviet Armored Strategic reserve (hence ending Societ Operations for the rest of 1943) and preserved Germany's - and if there was anything the Soviets had a healthy respect for, it was German Armored Operations in the hands of a master like Von Manstein.
Posted by yevaud

Just over a third of the total Red Army tanks were deployed at Kursk. About one fourth of the air force. And about one fifth of Red Army personnel. Even if the Soviets had lost, they would still be left with a bite. And tank production was through the roof in the USSR in 1943. 

The German attack was truly an act of desperation. They knew the Soviets had dug in. Hitler ordered the 'Totenritt' anyway, although he said the plan made 'his guts turn'. A German victory at Kursk would have never happened without great loss of men and material. They were riding into a tank hell. With what would be left of the Germans, even if they'd won, Von Manstein could hardly have overrun the rest of the Red Army. The sheer seize of the country was a desicive advantage for the Soviets too. Stalin knew this. Moscow had withstood the Blitz; Leningrad was holding on; and he just had crushed the Sixth Army at Stalingrad. The Germans lost the war well before Kursk. Stalin would have seen a German victory at Kursk as a setback, not defeat. It would have prolonged the war, but not changed its outcome. 

 

   

 

***

[pmn1]

Replying to:

1.    Japan invades and takes Hawaii, forcing the US fleet to base itself along the West Coast.

Logistics, logistic, logistics and the Japanese dont have enough

This pretty much sums up the chances of Japan successfully invading Hawaii

http://www.combinedfleet.com/pearlops.htm

 

And if you have a lot of time on your hands then

 

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/822

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/4487?page=1

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/4921?page=1

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/823?page=1

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/471?page=1

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/765?page=1

 

The hysteria over a possible Japanese invasion of Hawaii was similar to the hysteria over a German invasion of the UK, if you take a good look at it then both fall into Alien Space Bat territory. 

[pmn1]

Replying to:

Remember that they would have had (with the exception of the Aleutians) to cross thousands of miles of Pacific to do so.  And Hawaii in the Japanese' hands would operate exactly as it did for us, only in reverse.Which leads us to the odd scenario of us possibly having to invade Hawaii, or if that seemed too difficult, nuking it once we had them available.
Posted by yevaud

They also have to keep it supplied to be able to do that, once the USN gets its torpedoes working properly, their subs are going to take a massive toll on Japanese shipping which is already below what it needs. 

[yevaud]

Replying to:

[...] 

Logistics, logistic, logistics and the Japanese dont have enough...

Posted by pmn1

Surprise, surprise, suprise,  and the Japanese have plenty at the outset.

People forget that we had only three Aircraft Carriers in the Pacific at the outset,  and while they could have been rebuilt, in early 1942 they could hardly been [i]replaced[/i].  Japan could have run rampant for the next 6 months.  Suppose the Japanese High Command had  demurred about Midway?

Differential Diagnosis:  "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are."

[pmn1]

Replying to:

Surprise, surprise, suprise,  and the Japanese have plenty at the outset.People forget that we had only three Aircraft Carriers in the Pacific at the outset,  and while they could have been rebuilt, in early 1942 they could hardly been [i]replaced[/i].  Japan could have run rampant for the next 6 months.  Suppose the Japanese High Command had  demurred about Midway?
Posted by yevaud

Surprise is good but not very useful if you dont have the logistics to take advantage of it, what does an extra 6 months of running rampant do for Japan, the key areas they want, the oil in the DEI they already have, anything else just overextends them even further.

[yevaud]

Replying to:

Surprise is good but not very useful if you dont have the logistics to take advantage of it, what does an extra 6 months of running rampant do for Japan, the key areas they want, the oil in the DEI they already have, anything else just overextends them even further.

Posted by pmn1

But that as the point.  They had a strong and well-thought out defensive area, and had they kept to it, it would have been a far tougher nut to crack.  By extending down to Guadalcanal and Port Owen Stanley, the Japanese did the over-extending.  Suppose they had not?

Btw, a slight misnomer in one of the above posts: as of the time of Pearl Harbor and for several months following, we had not broken the most important Japanese codes.  Further, all orders pertaining to the actual initiation ofhostilities were not sent over any medium, but were all hand-delivered or orally provided.  All we knew was that they were going to begin hostilities somewhere, but the Pacific is large indeed.

Differential Diagnosis:  "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are."

[JonClarke]

Replying to:

.2.    Germany finishes off the Brits at Dunkirk.

What would have to change for this to be possible?  Dunkirk was already a defeat in of the first magnitude, but it did not finish Britain off.

Maybe with different leadership and different public feeling....

Jon

 

Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars  Arthur Clarke