- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How different would WW2 have turned out if Germany didn't delay for 3 days at Dunkirk?
Posted on 7/22/17 at 8:22 am to razorbackpat
Posted on 7/22/17 at 8:22 am to razorbackpat
No Dunkirk then I think there is a strong possibility there is no U.S. involvement in the war. The wildcard at that point is Japan. Do they still attack Pearl Harbor?
4
Posted on 7/22/17 at 8:29 am to LSUAlum2001
Well, for starters if the Germans had bagged up the whole BEF Britain would have sued for peace, which Hitler would have gladly given them. Thus, no Western Front in WWII. Plus Germany would have been free to throw her full weight at Russia. And seeing how there would have no Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe would have been far stronger because it would not have suffered horrific losses over Great Britain. And considering how close Germany came to capturing Moscow in real life, I dare say chances are good that if they'd not had to deal with Britain, they'd have probably won in Russia by fall of 1941, perhaps even sooner.
Posted on 7/22/17 at 8:29 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
The wildcard at that point is Japan.
Interesting thought... It could be that we ally with Russia and China by operating out of their land masses to prosecute the war in Europe and the Pacific. That would have been a crazy alliance under those circumstances... Not sure us operating from their turf is even realistic given where both of these nations were at that time...
Posted on 7/22/17 at 8:32 am to Cosmo
That still relies on a Churchill keeping the UK in the fight long enough for the Tizzard mission to happen.
A loss of the BEF men at Dunkirk would've led to the British government suing for peace. The evacuation led to a continuation of the British quirk and tradition of celebrating successful retreats as much as conquests.
A loss of the BEF men at Dunkirk would've led to the British government suing for peace. The evacuation led to a continuation of the British quirk and tradition of celebrating successful retreats as much as conquests.
Posted on 7/22/17 at 8:35 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
No Dunkirk then I think there is a strong possibility there is no U.S. involvement in the war. The wildcard at that point is Japan. Do they still attack Pearl Harbor?
Japan's decision to attack Pearl Harbor was based on the US oil and steel embargo which was due to Japan's invasion of China. Even if there was no war in Europe, there was going to be one in the Pacific no matter what.
The only way war between the US and Japn could have been avoided was either the US lift it's embargo in Japan or Japan withdraws from China. The impact of the oil embargo meant that Japan had to either leave China, go to war with the US, or accept the fact their whole civilization was about to revert to pre-industrial status. They chose war.
This post was edited on 7/22/17 at 8:37 am
Posted on 7/22/17 at 8:37 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
they'd have probably won in Russia by fall of 1941, perhaps even sooner.
I think the time frame is overly optimistic... Also, Russia's biggest ally was their winter....
There is no doubt the outcome could have been different for Russia, it is possible Germany could have simply conquered a portion of Russia not the whole thereby reshaping the landscape if you will...
Posted on 7/22/17 at 8:38 am to Tiger Prawn
quote:
If the US still develops nukes, after we nuked Japan then Germany would've been up next. Although its possible that Germany could've surrendered before US nuked them with more favorable terms than what they ended up getting after the Allies captured Berlin
I'm going to get down voted, but I don't think nukes are as important as you think (Atleast not on the scale they were at the time). Our fire bombing campaigns were arguably more destructive than dropping those nukes.
When you have air superiority what does it matter if it takes 2,000 bombs or 1 nuke to destroy a city? I think one of the biggest myths is that nukes somehow won world war 2
Posted on 7/22/17 at 8:42 am to Wolfhound45
They still attack Pearl Harbor.
They whole point of the attack was to knock us out of the Pacific long enough to secure their sphere. They had a huge beef with us because we cut exports of material after their Sino-Japanese war started and they simply couldn't grab enough oil to power the war machine. They still would've had the hubris to attempt it.
They whole point of the attack was to knock us out of the Pacific long enough to secure their sphere. They had a huge beef with us because we cut exports of material after their Sino-Japanese war started and they simply couldn't grab enough oil to power the war machine. They still would've had the hubris to attempt it.
Posted on 7/22/17 at 8:43 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
I think one of the biggest myths is that nukes somehow won world war 2
I do agree with you to a degree however I do not think you can argue the the nukes we used brought the pacific campaign to a close sooner, with less loss of life (as opposed to a convention invasion of Japan) and put us in a stronger position to negotiate their surrender.
Posted on 7/22/17 at 8:44 am to klrstix
quote:
I think the time frame is overly optimistic... Also, Russia's biggest ally was their winter....
Think of it this way, without having to face a Western Front against Great Britian, that means Germany can start transferring everything east in June 1940. And without Britain to get in the way, more than likely Germany doesn't have to get distracted in the Balkans either. Thus, Germany would have more than likely had it's full strength concentrated and ready by early spring 1941. We're talking about pushing the invasion up to like April. Forget the Russian ally "General Winter" because the Germans arrive at Moscow around late September early October now.
This post was edited on 7/22/17 at 8:45 am
Posted on 7/22/17 at 8:48 am to klrstix
A lot of what delayed Germany was reliance on Italians on the southern front which further got bogged down by six weeks dealing with insurrection.
Having the armies that just conquered France and gave Britain a black eye re-dedicated to the Russian invasion? The morale and fresh experience alone would push them in.
The full Luftwaffe at hand? The logistics all going east? No need to build the Atlantic wall as quickly? No need to man a sub force, surface raiders interdicting US aid to Russia.
Having the armies that just conquered France and gave Britain a black eye re-dedicated to the Russian invasion? The morale and fresh experience alone would push them in.
The full Luftwaffe at hand? The logistics all going east? No need to build the Atlantic wall as quickly? No need to man a sub force, surface raiders interdicting US aid to Russia.
Posted on 7/22/17 at 8:52 am to ZappBrannigan
quote:
A lot of what delayed Germany was reliance on Italians on the southern front which further got bogged down by six weeks dealing with insurrection.
Having the armies that just conquered France and gave Britain a black eye re-dedicated to the Russian invasion? The morale and fresh experience alone would push them in.
The full Luftwaffe at hand? The logistics all going east? No need to build the Atlantic wall as quickly? No need to man a sub force, surface raiders interdicting US aid to Russia.
Exactly my point. If GB losses the BEF at Dunkirk they most likely sue for peace and Germany most likely conquers the Soviet Union as a result.
Posted on 7/22/17 at 8:52 am to LSUAlum2001
I always thought the primary reason Hitler ordered a halt is because the Panzer units were advancing far ahead of the infantry, so the Panzers were halted in order to let the infantry catch up before a final assault.
Anyway, I am looking forward to seeing the movie. There is perhaps one movie made every three or four years that I want to see badly enough to go pay movie theater prices to see. This is one of them.
Anyway, I am looking forward to seeing the movie. There is perhaps one movie made every three or four years that I want to see badly enough to go pay movie theater prices to see. This is one of them.
Posted on 7/22/17 at 8:54 am to klrstix
quote:
I do agree with you to a degree however I do not think you can argue the the nukes we used brought the pacific campaign to a close sooner, with less loss of life (as opposed to a convention invasion of Japan) and put us in a stronger position to negotiate their surrender.
Well I can argue it.
I'm not saying I believe this, because I'm not sure anyone knows for a fact, but many historians say that the Japanese really surrendered because Russia entered the war against Japan. We were destroying Japanese cities daily with traditional bombs and they didn't surrender, the destruction of 2 cities with nukes was really not that big of a deal
If you want to talk about decisions that would have saved the most number of lives, then letting the Japanese emperor stay on the throne would have resulted in them surrendering way before we dropped any nukes. That's why they were holding out. But I'm not saying that making the emperor step down was a bad idea
Posted on 7/22/17 at 8:54 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Think of it this way...
Very plausible... However, to me its not about how much resources they throw at Russia. As I recall they already had 80% of their War resources invested in Russia. The three things I think that make the difference is this...
Rommel... What difference does he make as a commander in the Russian Front.
Timing... As you said, avoiding General Winter...
Our involvement... It is possible, though unlikely Russia allows the US to operate from within their borders... You could also see us operating out of Iran, Iraq, act... and what that might look like....
Posted on 7/22/17 at 8:59 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
the destruction of 2 cities with nukes was really not that big of a deal
This is the part I disagree with...
I think the psychological effect of a single bomb doing that much destruction is mostly what brought them to the table. However, I do agree with you Russia entering into the fight was no small factor either.
But, your case is solid and mine is merely my opinion..
Posted on 7/22/17 at 9:05 am to klrstix
Yes firebombings did way more destruction. But that required fleets of planes, massive tonnage of incendiaries and explosive mixes to uncover more stuff to burn.
The nuke was a few spotter planes, one bomber, one recording, one bomb. Mid-morning. Imagine the hubris of it. You're a Japanese civilian in a relatively untouched Hiroshima, you see 6 or 8 planes during the course of it, you expect honestly nothing, it's going to mean a raid later that day though or maybe more of those damn leaflets. Something releases half a minute later it explodes. Blinded, you can smell fire and cooked fleshed and concrete and buildings. One bomb.
and the pressure and fire it started did this.
No wonder the world is scared shite less of Us and the rest of the Security Council (also India, Pakistan, and Israel).
The nuke was a few spotter planes, one bomber, one recording, one bomb. Mid-morning. Imagine the hubris of it. You're a Japanese civilian in a relatively untouched Hiroshima, you see 6 or 8 planes during the course of it, you expect honestly nothing, it's going to mean a raid later that day though or maybe more of those damn leaflets. Something releases half a minute later it explodes. Blinded, you can smell fire and cooked fleshed and concrete and buildings. One bomb.
and the pressure and fire it started did this.
No wonder the world is scared shite less of Us and the rest of the Security Council (also India, Pakistan, and Israel).
Posted on 7/22/17 at 9:09 am to Wolfhound45
No Dunkirk then Hitler probably invades soon and you have Vichy Britain.
The US would've eventually allied with USSR for a much longer war, after the Japs inevitably attacked.
The US would've eventually allied with USSR for a much longer war, after the Japs inevitably attacked.
Posted on 7/22/17 at 9:09 am to TheFonz
They had outrun the supply line in places, there was a shitload of fuel left behind by the BEF retreat. If it wasn't clothing or food it was almost all ditched on the side of the road in the retreat. It's really a little from column A and a little from Column B.
Posted on 7/22/17 at 9:10 am to klrstix
quote:
Rommel... What difference does he make as a commander in the Russian Front.
Two words.. game changer.
quote:
Timing... As you said, avoiding General Winter...
Add this on top of having Rommel.
quote:
Our involvement... It is possible, though unlikely Russia allows the US to operate from within their borders... You could also see us operating out of Iran, Iraq, act... and what that might look like....
I have to wonder, would we still get invovled? Remember it was Germany who declared war in the US (we were the only country they actually bothered to offically declare war on). one of the supposed reasons Germany declared war on the US was our material and military support for Britain in the Atlantic. If Britian had been knocked out of the war in June 1940, thus no US involvement in the Atlantic or support for Britain in any way. At that point Hitler has no reason to declare war on the US. And without Germany declaring war on the US, there is no way FDR can justify to the American people why he'd be getting bogged down in a war against the world's most powerful military in a war that invloves us in no way right after we are dealt a sneaky suprise attack by Japan.
Since we are playing a guessing game here, I'd say the most likely course of events is the war between Germany and Russia on one hand and the US and Japan on the other would in this case remained two wholly separate affairs.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News