MrMoogyMan t1_j7lmfpy wrote
Reply to comment by iMattist in Would the Allies have kept fighting if the axis powers stopped? by Techno-87
I think the UK's unwillingness to surrender was the key. Even if the USSR did not get invaded by Hitler (an unrealistic scenario given Hitler's ego), the UK would hold on with logistical support from the Anglosphere and material from the Americas. Germany would have had to escalate naval presence to prevent this, and that would provoke the US into involvement. I think had not Japan done Pearl Harbor, I believe it was only a matter of time before German u-boats and public outrage drew the US into active conflict with the Nazis. Escalation did really seem inevitable.
Doortofreeside t1_j7lpkii wrote
The what if I'm particularly curious about is if the Japanese attacked the Soviets instead of Pearl Harbor
Raging-Fuhry t1_j7miqyc wrote
They did attack the Soviets at Khalkin Gol.
The poorly equipped and led IJA (which had been stripped of a lot of funding and manpower by the IJN) got totally obliterated by Soviet far eastern forces.
Japan immediately brokered a ceasefire with the Soviets, which the USSR held until they invaded Manchuria and the Kurils in '45.
OrangeSlimeSoda t1_j7mk91r wrote
The Japanese also simply didn't have the manufacturing base to create tank and anti-tank weaponry that could go toe-to-toe with the Soviets. The air forces performed well and the Soviets were unnerved by the ferocity of the Japanese infantrymen (even if they were less than impressed by Japanese army tactics), but Japan's logistical and manufacturing limitations meant that they simply could not succeed in a prolonged offensive against the Soviets on land.
Raging-Fuhry t1_j7mmbsi wrote
It's worth noting that the VVS still lost less airmen than the IJA, and the otherwise outdated I-16 fighter was a good match against Japanese planes since it's light armament could still damage the lightly armoured IJA planes, and it was just as maneuverable.
MrMoogyMan t1_j7lr0vc wrote
They had planned on it iirc but realized that they would be not have a strategically viable position because of their overextension and the threat from the US. I don't think it's easy to speculate what a IJA invasion of eastern USSR would look like. Would it take pressure off of Hitlers Wehrmacht? Or would it have pushed the US to strike first? The IJN surely would have been very upset about it, and had already thrown their weight around to get rid of Matsuoka in Jul 1941. Japanese military internal rivalry sabotaged a lot of strategic ground operations and planning. I think it would have been disastrous for Japan, regardless of the Soviet response.
cliff99 t1_j7m7imu wrote
Plus attacking the Soviet Union wouldn't have done anything for one of their major problems, which was getting a reliable source of oil.
[deleted] t1_j7mb9yu wrote
[deleted]
MisterBadGuy159 t1_j7moygu wrote
There's an account that Admiral Yamamoto, who led the attack on Pearl Harbor, told his higher-ups that he could guarantee six months where he could actually take home victories, and if the war went on past that, they were screwed. Six months to the day after Pearl Harbor, Japan lost four fleet carriers at the battle of Midway.
treetown1 t1_j7mp0ip wrote
They were working off of the Russo-Japanese war experience - where Tsarist Russia stopped fighting after Mukden and Tsushima.
MrMoogyMan t1_j7mbl83 wrote
I agree. There are oil fields in eastern Russia but they weren't well developed then. They would have never been able to sustain an occupation of the territory in the USSR while holding the rest of their gains in China and SW Asia against the Allies. Maybe the US may have just entered the war on its own at that point. Roosevelt was certainly convinced that war was on the way, and prepared as well as he could for it. Pearl Harbor was basically a gift to the US government for public support against Japan.
TheLateHenry t1_j7m34hx wrote
Yeah, the Japanese Army was stretched thin because of how big China is already, the Soviet Union would have been an impossibility for them to conquer much of.
[deleted] t1_j7mf2l5 wrote
[removed]
OrangeSlimeSoda t1_j7mjsfp wrote
A lot of colonial subjects in Southeast Asia were cautiously optimistic about the Japanese invading and granting them independence, even if they were satellite states to the Japanese Empire. The quickly learned the unfortunate lesson that the Chinese and Koreans had learned in prior decades.
[deleted] t1_j7mmtcl wrote
[removed]
ErrolFuckingFlynn t1_j7mkecr wrote
I'm very curious as to your reasoning on this. Being shitshow bastards to the Chinese was a pretty integral part of the reasoning behind invading China in the first place.
SirJudasIscariot t1_j7ml7jp wrote
I highly doubt the Chinese would’ve willingly rolled over and accepted Japanese occupation. The Western colonial powers had been repeatedly humiliating them for a century, the British especially, pushing drugs on them so the British could sustain their local and national economy. The two Opium Wars were fought for this reason. And then Japan and China fight for Korea, which had always been in the Chinese sphere of influence, and when Japan won, the other nations began raping their country even more. The last Emperor lost his reign, a new leader became a tyrannical despot, warlords ruled the country and did their own thing, Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong had their political and military battles, and most of Eastern China was a war-torn or corrupt mess. The Japanese just stepped in and played whoever would let them have their territorial conquests. Would the Chinese accept Japanese rule? Only at gunpoint, and only because the Japanese were strong enough and terrible enough to enforce it. Most of the Japanese war crimes were committed in this country because they adopted Western ideas of racism and applied it to the Chinese. It’s a complicated situation, and those Chinese that bowed to Japan did so for power, wealth, security, or because they had no choice, and Japan brutally oppressed them anyways.
Alexexy t1_j7muzly wrote
Japan could have assumed the centuries old imperial China bureaucratic structures, cut deals with warlords/the republic, and as long as they left the peasantry alone or at least let them do whatever they want i doubt they would have a mass uprising. It's not like the republic of China was a very popular political force among the peasantry either.
Aanar t1_j7mlub3 wrote
Good point. Japan already had Manchuria set up as a puppet for themselves in 1936.
China got a lot of arms sent to them. If Japan hadn't been so ruthless, they probably would haven't been sent so many.
Masterzjg t1_j7mq6gq wrote
You can't separate Japanese culture and society from the way they treated conquered peoples.
Kaiser8414 t1_j7mlwmt wrote
Just because Poland keeps getting conquered doesn't mean they were rolling out the red carpet for Germany and Russia in 1939.
Alexexy t1_j7mue1c wrote
Of course most people weren't gonna be ok with it, but the Japanese can probably assume the old diplomatic structures and most normal people would have been ok with whatever is going on unless affects their day to day lives.
But nope, they gotta rape women and bayonet babies.
Vilrek t1_j7mujro wrote
I think the unspoken point was that China's history of being conquered was like, eventually they eclipse their conqueror/assimilate them anyway, such as the Mongols or Manchurians, though I don't think that would happen here, as those two were intent on incorporating China as a whole, while the Japanese mostly just wanted the resources/manpower, like India was to the UK, except a "bit" harsher
treetown1 t1_j7mpbi7 wrote
Often times people forget this - but ironically computer wargames like Strategic Command World at War shows the massive comittment of troops and material to China and how it dwarfed the IJA committment elsewhere.
[deleted] t1_j7mqmf7 wrote
[removed]
TyroneLeinster t1_j7mt7q8 wrote
I think at best it would have sped up Russia’s capitulation had the Germans been more successful and pushed Stalin past the urals as he had anticipated. But given that the Wehrmacht stalled where it did, I don’t think a Japanese eastern front would have moved that needle significantly
SirJudasIscariot t1_j7mib25 wrote
They did and it didn’t fare well for them. There’s a reason Southeast Asia was called the Southern Resource Area. Manchuria, Siberia, and parts of Mongolia were the Northern Resource Area. For seven years, sporadic conflicts and fighting broke out between the Soviets and the Japanese, and while the Soviets suffered more casualties, the Japanese were repeatedly defeated and had to sign a neutrality pact once they lost all the Soviet and Mongolian land they had taken. Nearly 60,000 people became casualties in this border conflict. It was also where Georgy Zhukov gained his first experience commanding large formations of troops in battle.
Aanar t1_j7mkny9 wrote
I realize it's a game and not the most historically accurate, but I've been trying things in Hearts of Iron IV to help whet my imagination for "what if X did this instead?
If you play Japan, it's hard to put enough pressure on the Soviets if you go into Vladivostok into Siberia. There's just so little infrastructure and supply that there isn't a way to push quickly. A small enough army to not have supply issues, and it can't push. Big enough to push quickly or blitz and you quickly leave your supply lines behind.
There's also not a whole lot there that helps Japan and Japan really is hard pressed for resources, not just oil and rubber, but even just steel. Yes there is oil in Siberia now, but it wasn't discovered/developed in that era.
Rather than Siberia, it works better as Japan to attack the Soviets through Iran and then push into the Caucasus. It gets oil for you and your friends and takes most of the Soviets away, crippling them. Iran itself has a little developed, and the caucuses are the next best source after Texas.
Edit: can't reply since the thread is locked. In response to Masterzig, yeah I should have added attacking Iran only really works as Japan if you do it without getting bogged down in a war with China and stay at peace with Britain as long as possible (since British controlled Pakistan borders Iran). Take Iran, then just wait until Germany launches Barbarosa. You're right you aren't taking on the Soviet army by yourself, but it's enough to tip things toward forcing the Soviets to surrender. I don't see it being very realistic for the Axis and Japanese to cooperate that closely though - they never did IRL.
I don't know what Japan's landing craft capabilties were like. They captured many of China's ports while at war with them, so must have had something. Iran doesn't have much in 1936-1945, so invading Iran is pretty doable. I don't see any situation where Japan would have done that thoguh since they were just focused on thing nearer to them in the Pacific. Iran does have some oil fields though, which Japan really needed. Biggest issue is it's so mountainous it takes a while to get through to the Soviet border and British India/Pakistan is then in between your forces there and Japan. The oil fields Iran does have are enough to get Japan by for a while. And the politics (in the game at least) are such that nobody really cares if you take Iran in 1937.
Masterzjg t1_j7mr1gd wrote
Japan doesn't have the capability to attack USSR through Iran. It's "better" in a tabletop sim kind of way.
The real problem is that the Japanese Army was no match for the Soviet Army.
sly0824 t1_j7mhpsk wrote
What would the reason have been for Japan to attack the USSR instead of America at Pearl Harbor? The Americans (and to a lesser extent the British) were threatening Japan's goals of conquering the resource rich areas of southern Asia and the south Pacific. Attacking and destroying the Soviet Pacific fleet - which was puny compared to the American one - wouldn't have achieved anything for the Japanese.
TyroneLeinster t1_j7msj97 wrote
Japan’s land army was no match for the Soviets. Even being stretched thin in the west, it likely wouldn’t have taken much commitment to severely limit japan’s gains in the East.
I suspect it’s quite likely that as Japan decimated its own resources trying to invade Russia, Roosevelt would have eventually found a casus belli and started a war in the pacific on his own terms. The fear of this exact thing is why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in the first place.
[deleted] t1_j7ml1lj wrote
[deleted]
tigre200 t1_j7m0588 wrote
Most persons forget that the UK was not just the set of islands it is now. The war would hinge on North Africa and the middle east. If the germans got a secure hold on egypt and palestine, the British would eventually be forced to surrender to stop the bloodshed.
MrMoogyMan t1_j7m6z7p wrote
I disagree. Even if Hitler and Mussolini succeeded in holding North Africa and the Middle East, the UK would have continued resistance. Hitler would have needed to take naval superiority from the UK and somehow dissuade international support to the isles without provocation. Hitler also failed to sustain an effective strategic bombing campaign over the British isles and did not succeed in pressuring the British through direct flights over their homeland.
MarcusXL t1_j7mdxvr wrote
Luftwaffe was built to support the ground troops, not conduct strategic bombing campaigns. Hitler demanded it do both, and it cost them dearly.
MrMoogyMan t1_j7mew0m wrote
It also didn't help that instead of smartly attriting the UK's air-military-industry to gain total air superiority, Hitler ordered a campaign of terror against the people of Britain, who were far more resilient than what Hitler believed.
SirJudasIscariot t1_j7mmd6q wrote
When the Battle of Britain began, the Luftwaffe focused exclusively on the RAF, hitting airbases, shooting down aircraft, knocking out air defenses, basically trying to gain air superiority. The RAF was pushed to the breaking point, and it wasn’t until Bomber Command struck Berlin that Hitler changed priorities from striking military targets to bombing London on a daily and nightly basis. This is when the Luftwaffe lost the battle. They had almost gained air superiority and had to throw it away to strike at civilian targets.
MrMoogyMan t1_j7mr4h4 wrote
It wasn't that close to defeat; British production was still out producing German in aircraft and the notion that the RAF was going to fall was bad intel, wishful thinking by the German high command or deliberate mildec. I think it's a bit overdramatic to claim the RAF was at its breaking point when most airfields remained operational and the military industry still buidling replacements. The British had solid air defense and early warning radar, international pilots, and plenty of juice left to punish the Luftwaffe.
Tianxiac t1_j7mxr9i wrote
The RAF at the breaking point but hanging on and defeating the germans in a miracle is part of UK ww2 myth and romanticism.
ErrolFuckingFlynn t1_j7ml4i1 wrote
A bad gamble. One of many
Masterzjg t1_j7mrr1v wrote
It was the first war to allow for mass destruction via air power - hindsight 20/20 on what was a "bad" idea and what was a "good" idea.
MrMoogyMan t1_j7mtdh9 wrote
Some maxims military strategic theory transcend accessible technologies, and the fact that Hitler (thankfully) sucked at military strategy was no secret to his own high command. There's no hindsight to be had here when his own contemporaries saw the looming failure of his military operations.
[deleted] t1_j7mtr3b wrote
[deleted]
Masterzjg t1_j7mtzwo wrote
>There's no hindsight to be had here when his own contemporaries saw the looming failure of his military operations.
Except the Allies also debated whether strategic bombing worked. So yes, you're defining hindsight bias.
As for "the generals", of course they blamed Hitler for any mistakes. What are they going to do, blame themselves? Lol.
MrMoogyMan t1_j7mwdz4 wrote
Are u here to have a productive and informed conversation or can I just block u now?
Cetun t1_j7m5zzk wrote
Great Britain itself probably could have eventually defeated the Nazis regardless of how much territory they gained in Russia. Given their colonial Empire and the support of the Commonwealth and the industrial backing of the United States, they just had too many men and resources that Germany couldn't have matched. In a war of attrition Britain would have won no matter what, at tremendous costs of course.
What Great Britain ended up doing was going into debt to the United States and giving up half of Europe to the Soviet Union so they could mostly sit the war out. At the end of 1941 the Polish government in exile was still in London and the Soviets had installed their own government. Britain's guarantee of Independence of Poland had little to do with Britain's concern over Polish sovereignty and had more to do with a grudge between them and Germany. In the end they didn't care who defeated Germany as long as Germany was defeated. So in 1939 they had this enormous Empire and strategic allies in Eastern Europe, and 20 years after World War II they were still in debt to the United States, had lost most of their empire because of promises made to the United States to decolonize, and the The entire Eastern Europe was now occupied by Soviet forces with various public governments.
the_better_twin t1_j7miv4f wrote
The claim that Britain "mostly sat out the war" is possibly one of the most egregious claims I've read on Reddit. Well done.
ErrolFuckingFlynn t1_j7mkwkp wrote
Indeed. The Commonwealth nations were killing fascists at just about every latitude on the planet. Not sure what the hell this argument is supposed to be.
I'm not a Churchill fan but he sure did throw everything but the kitchen sink at Hitler and Mussolini to be fair.
Cetun t1_j7mkbvn wrote
Yea? Besides retreating from Europe what major invasion of continental Europe did they attempt without the additional support of US troops?
dplafoll t1_j7mmwty wrote
How many US troops were at Sword, Gold, and Juno beaches at Normandy? How many RAF personnel were lost over Europe during the bombing campaigns? How many RN personnel were lost in the Battle of the Atlantic?
That's just three examples. Yes, the US participated in all of them, but so did the British. To only give them credit where they did something alone is just... willfully ignorant and asinine.
The British most certainly did not "[sit] out the war", and saying as much is a grave disservice to the millions of British and Commonwealth citizens who fought and died against the Nazis, military or civilian.
Cetun t1_j7mszek wrote
They were in the war from 1939 to 1945 and had less casualties than the United States who was in the war, effectively from 1942 to 1945. The British took part in no major offensive operations or invasions outside of North Africa before the US entered the war, and then every major operation was in conjunction with the US and allied divisions.
It's not a disservice to say they sat it out, it's facts, they were playing a defensive war of attrition against Germany. Does that mean they wouldn't get bombed? No. Does that mean their ships wouldn't get attacked? No. Does that mean no British person died, just that they weren't really interested in fighting Germany on mainland Europe unless they had other people to do the majority of the work.
Over half their army consisted of colonial or Commonwealth troops. Over third of all their casualties were from either the commonwealth or colonies.
More Soviets soldiers died in Operation Bagration from combat than British from all causes including British civilian and commonwealth combat personal combined. 2,000,000 Bengali died of starvation because of British war policies that prioritized denial of food to the impending Japanese invasion over the people living in the area.
They were as passive as they could be, you act like responding attack = offensive action. They minimized their casualties until someone else came along and held their hand or just did the work themselves. The Soviets would be marching into Paris if the US hadn't come along and held the British hands in Italy and France.
michael_harari t1_j7mn232 wrote
You get your entire knowledge of history from call of duty, don't you
Cetun t1_j7mtev4 wrote
Oh yea, educate me on their planned retaking of Europe by themselves. I'll wait.
michael_harari t1_j7mtym9 wrote
I'm fairly certain there's a wide range of options between "sat out the war like the US" and "single handedly planned to retake Europe"
Cetun t1_j7mwcqi wrote
I'm looking at WWI and the British seemed to unilaterally attempt to take on the Ottoman empire in the middle east and Gallipoli. At Passchendaele the British proffered 50 divisions to an offensive compared to the 6 French divisions. In WWI we see the British taking the initiative and taking the fight to the enemy well before the US entered the war.
We do not see that in WWII. We see mostly defensive holding actions and retreats until the US enters the war.
the_better_twin t1_j7mqdmp wrote
Well before the US joined the war, Britains army was focused on the Mediterranean, mostly north Africa (because of the oil) and Greece/ Malta to secure the passage of their fleet. They were also involved in campaigns in east Africa against Italy though. The air force was obviously preoccupied by the Battle of Britain so a full scale assault on Europe at this time would have been a ridiculous undertaking, nevertheless, the defeat of the Luftwaffe, meant that the invasion of a German occupied Europe was now a possibility.
Now we get onto when the US joined the war. When pearl harbor happened, you might also be unaware, that Japan simultaneously attacked the British in East Asia, for example in Burma. It was British troops who eventually repelled these gains the Japanese had made.
Meanwhile in Europe, Britain and the Commonwealth were landing troops on three beaches alongside their American allies, defeating Germany's best General in the deserts of North Africa, landing almost as many troops in Italy as the US did, and more.
British scientists were contributing to the Manhattan project (and were subsequently stabbed in the back when the US refused to share the outcomes with their ally but anyway...) and British intelligence was shared from bletchley park to the US and the soviets which undoubtedly helped win the war.
We could get into little things like British engines in American planes but now I feel like I'm being petty. The point is the war truly was an allied effort and to dismiss the contributions of anyone is just naive.
Also for the record when I say British I mean British and Commonwealth. It truly was a world war, soldiers from India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Africa, Nepal and many many other countries fought and died to stop the biggest maniac the world has seen. It certainly was not a team America film.
[deleted] t1_j7mvl4d wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments