• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Second World War And Axis Victory

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,655
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
So here is a theory. I am wondering how others would approach this. What do you think the results would have been if the USSR and Nazi Germany had maintained the peace/nonaggression pact?

Do you think that war could have been brought to the United States door step? I certainly think that the UK mainland would have been in trouble. I don't know if mainland America could have been invaded. And maybe the soviets would have used their resources in the east?
 

faithful_servant

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
12,533
Reaction score
5,659
Location
Beautiful Central Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
So here is a theory. I am wondering how others would approach this. What do you think the results would have been if the USSR and Nazi Germany had maintained the peace/nonaggression pact?

Do you think that war could have been brought to the United States door step? I certainly think that the UK mainland would have been in trouble. I don't know if mainland America could have been invaded. And maybe the soviets would have used their resources in the east?

A conflict between Germany and the USSR was inevitable. Had the Soviets stayed out of the European theater and allowed Germany to consolidate their position there, they would have eventually had to step up to the plate and invade Germany. The scenario most likely would have been something along the lines of Germany invading Britain, leaving the US out of Europe for at least 2 more years. This would have allowed us to focus our efforts on Japan, cutting that conflict short by at least a year, if not two. Once we had stopped the Japanese, we would have been facing a well dug in and developed Germany. The Soviets would have most likely allied themselves with us against that Japanese fairly late in the game and taken a big chunk of Japan's northern islands for themselves. So now you have an expansionist Germany facing the Soviets on their Eastern border with no one to draw any of their resources away from the conflict. We decide to liberate Europe and do so by way a massive man and materials movement across the Soviet Union. It would be a long supply chain, but one that the Soviets would be all to happy to put in place, since it would be a massive infrastructure improvement to their nation at our expense. With the combination of our technology and manufacturing and the Soviets manpower, Germany would fall. They might end up nuking a couple of Soviet cities, but in the end Germany still falls in the end.

There just isn't a scenario where the Soviets and Nazi Germany could co-exist for very long. Eventually, there would be another push into the east by Germany as they needed more room and the Soviets would have to respond.
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,343
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
So here is a theory. I am wondering how others would approach this. What do you think the results would have been if the USSR and Nazi Germany had maintained the peace/nonaggression pact?

Do you think that war could have been brought to the United States door step? I certainly think that the UK mainland would have been in trouble. I don't know if mainland America could have been invaded. And maybe the soviets would have used their resources in the east?
Recently a German U Boat was found off the coast near where I live in Florida, so yea. I think the Germans would try to get here.
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
So here is a theory. I am wondering how others would approach this. What do you think the results would have been if the USSR and Nazi Germany had maintained the peace/nonaggression pact?

Do you think that war could have been brought to the United States door step? I certainly think that the UK mainland would have been in trouble. I don't know if mainland America could have been invaded. And maybe the soviets would have used their resources in the east?

Back before Hitler attacked the Soviets, Germany and the USSR were allies.

Back in America CPUSA took it's orders from the Kremlin and had big influence over America's unions. The left don't like to acknowledge this but Hitler was a socialist and Hitler was a comrade until Comrade Hitler attacked Comrade Stalin. The left didn't like that at all.

But before Hitler attacked Stalin and during the London blitz, the unions in America were conducting wild cat strikes in 1941 at America's war factories and on the docks trying to prevent war materials reaching England. The most famous of these strikes was at the North American Aviation plant in Inglewood, Ca, where the P-51's were being manufactured.

http://libcom.org/files/Rad America V9 I4-5.pdf
 

Quag

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
30,216
Reaction score
13,384
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So here is a theory. I am wondering how others would approach this. What do you think the results would have been if the USSR and Nazi Germany had maintained the peace/nonaggression pact?

Do you think that war could have been brought to the United States door step? I certainly think that the UK mainland would have been in trouble. I don't know if mainland America could have been invaded. And maybe the soviets would have used their resources in the east?

Any combination of 2 of the 3 main allied powers would have defeated Germany it just would have taken longer.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
26,021
Reaction score
22,689
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So here is a theory. I am wondering how others would approach this. What do you think the results would have been if the USSR and Nazi Germany had maintained the peace/nonaggression pact?

Do you think that war could have been brought to the United States door step? I certainly think that the UK mainland would have been in trouble. I don't know if mainland America could have been invaded. And maybe the soviets would have used their resources in the east?

This is way out in left field thinking but at a high level if Germany did not have to fight a two front war we might have handled the war in the pacific theater very differently. At the same time I suspect WWII would have taken longer to fight and might have included the front taking more of France at least part of UK falling. Either way the US would eventually have been faced with a more costly air and land campaign against the Germans and might, just might, have included Atomic warfare in a manner like what we did to Japan. The only thing to keep in mind was the only reason we considered such weapons against Japan was to avoid the costs and resource needs for Operation Downfall. Under your proposed scenario odds are that consideration would have a similar thinking in dealing with Germany being able to concentrate their forces on a single front.

What I do not think would have happened is the Germans attacking the US mainland. They knew two things very key. One, the better strategy under that scenario would have been to secure more if Europe. Not just for resources but control much further into the North Atlantic. Two, the knew the US was an armed nation and would have required a sizable force.

For the soviets if not having to deal with Germany, odds are they would have spent more of their campaign ensuring neighboring nations saw things their way and perhaps took more of what we call the middle east and far east today for purely resource reasons. I doubt they would have taken all of Asia, not what I am saying. But they would have made far more strategic ties making any future "war of containment" more complicated for the West and handling the Middle East for oil more complex.

Another potential here is if this was accomplished using a non aggression pact with Germany, there could have been down the road breaking of that agreement based on what the Germans could have done against Europe. The soviets could have taken advantage late in the game and pushed their controlled (at least influenced) borders right up against the eastern edge of Germany. They would eventually fight anyway. The ideology of the period on both sides of that fence demanded security obtained in the most strict manner. A Nazi Germany and a Soviet Union as we knew it post WWII are ultimately incompatible.
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This is way out in left field thinking but at a high level if Germany did not have to fight a two front war we might have handled the war in the pacific theater very differently. /QUOTE]

I don't think so. The fuse for war with Japan was lit in the early 1900's during the Theodore Roosevelt administration..

The plan for fighting Japan was written by two Marine Corps officers and was adopted I believe in 1924. It was known as War Plan Orange and it was the plan used to fight the war in the Pacific.

HyperWar: US Army in WWII: Strategy and Command: The First Two Years

HyperWar: USMC Operations in WWII: Vol III--Central Pacific Drive [Chapter I-1]
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
14,263
Reaction score
10,679
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
So here is a theory. I am wondering how others would approach this. What do you think the results would have been if the USSR and Nazi Germany had maintained the peace/nonaggression pact?

Do you think that war could have been brought to the United States door step? I certainly think that the UK mainland would have been in trouble. I don't know if mainland America could have been invaded. And maybe the soviets would have used their resources in the east?

The peace would not have lasted more then 3-5 more years. Both were competing political theories and had strong antipathy for each other.

Plus you are leaving out the ultimate "Weakest Link" of the Axis Powers, Italy.

More then anything else, it was Italy that lost WWII. Their defeats ended up pulling German forces all over the map, from North Africa and Sicily, ultimately into Italy itself. I have long believed that more then anything else, it was the weakness of Italy that ultimately doomed Germany.

And from everything I have ever seen, England would not have fallen (although they might have become Finlandized). Germany never had the assets to invade England, and never attempted to build them. They might have forced a political capitulation and disinvested their Global Empire, but I can't see how they could have ever seriously invaded.

And the same goes with the US. To big, to far away, no real chance of ever taking it over.

One thing people have to remember is that neither Germany nor Japan wanted to have "Empires" as most people thought of the term. Both envisioned being the "Mother Country" of a bunch of other countries who followed them because they were obviously superior. This can be seen in the fact that with a few exceptions, the countries invaded were not annexed. In fact, quite a few were "Liberated" by the conquerors, and became "Independent Nations". The Philippines, Manchuria, Burma, Thailand, Japan was well known not only for invading countries, but for "Liberating" them, even if only to move from one largely benevolent master to a brutal one who controlled through fear.

Interestingly, neither Germany nor Japan wanted to directly control all of their "Empire", they were more along the lines of the Roman Empire. Let the kings and princes and potentates rule the individual countries, just so that they in turn paid homage to Germany and Japan.

But invading the US, that was never going to happen. Even the most audacious plans for "Axis Victory" had the Americas largely sitting as an independent entity, a variant "Cold War", with at most a few of the Alaskan islands falling under Japanese occupation (and maybe Hawaii in addition to the islands already conquered). The expectation of the Soviet Union was that eventually it would be invaded, with Germany taking the industrial Western parts, Japan taking the coastal Eastern part, and leaving a shell nation of Russia under their control holding the remaining, largely worthless land in between.

The general "absolute worst case" scenarios were rather interesting. The majority of Central and South America would not have supported either Germany nor Japan. In this the US was unquestionably the propaganda winner, with most seeing Germany, Japan and Italy as an attempt to a return to colonization. And even some of the old war plans like Crimson (invasion of Canada) and Scarlet (Invasion of Australia) were dusted off and updated to a contingency plan. That if somehow England and the United Kingdom were to fall and the King captured, Canada, Australia, and many of the overseas territories (Caribbean islands) would be "Invaded" by the US and "Occupied" administratively. This was not for the conquering, but largely an administrative plan, so that a victorious Germany could not use the United Kingdom framework to use it's influence to force the Commonwealth nations to support it in a war.

Seizing the King and forcing England to become an Ally of Germany could have theoretically used force to have Canada, Australia, Jamaica, and other areas support them as well. By doing a "Protective Invasion" the US could have severed the ties of those nations during the war and made them US Territories instead of United Kingdom territories. And this was supported by the UK as a "last ditch effort" in the event that England fell, and the Royal Family could not be evacuated and were captured.
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
14,263
Reaction score
10,679
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I don't think so. The fuse for war with Japan was lit in the early 1900's during the Theodore Roosevelt administration..

The plan for fighting Japan was written by two Marine Corps officers and was adopted I believe in 1924. It was known as War Plan Orange and it was the plan used to fight the war in the Pacific.

HyperWar: US Army in WWII: Strategy and Command: The First Two Years

HyperWar: USMC Operations in WWII: Vol III--Central Pacific Drive [Chapter I-1]

In this we only disagree slightly. You place it at President Roosevelt in the early 1900's, I place it at President McKinley and the Boxer Rebellion. That was the first time that a modern Japan emerged to cooperate with European powers, and was royally shafted by them in the aftermath.

In truth, Japan gave more resources then any other country in that incident. 18 warships (Russia sent 10, UK 8, US 2) and over 20,000 soldiers (Russia sent 12,000, the UK 10,000, the US 3,000). Yet the majority of reparations and land occupations were handed over to the US, UK, and Russia. The Russo-Japanese war to follow was primarily over port control of occupied territory after the Boxer Rebellion.

Their feeling of being "ripped off" by the Europeans is a major factor for their drive to gain an "Asian Empire". They realized that no matter what they did, they would always be looked down upon. So they had to take things for themselves.

And yes, War Plan Orange is mostly known as written by Major Earl Ellis and the backbone of the war against Japan. But it was actually only half of a much larger plan, War Plan Red-Orange.

Until the failure of the Washington Naval Treaty and Japan walking out of the League of Nations, it was generally believed that any future war with Japan would occur with their main ally assisting them. And that was England. So Red-Orange was a plan for a multi-continental war, across 2 oceans against 2 major powers. A decade later when WWII actually happened, the political changes were immense, and Red-Orange was updated and changed. War Plan Red was merged with the old War Plan Black (war against Germany), and War Plan Orange was stripped away and largely left intact.

Interesting point, this is generally accepted as the source of the "Blue Vs. Red" concept. Red was the color picked for the United Kingdom, and Blue for the United States (War Plan Blue was an internal preparation and defensive plan against an unknown enemy). And the future roles of the military can also be seen in who prepared the various plans.

War Plan Red and Black were primarily drafted by the US Army. War Plan Orange was primarily drafted by the Marines and Navy. And 20-30 years later when they were actually enacted, that is who primarily fought in each theatre.

https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/unsolved-mystery-pete-ellis

I have been fascinated with Earl Ellis for decades, and have long wondered why there is no movie about his life. This is a man who literally saw WWII 20 years before it happened, named it's major goals and battlefields, predicted how it would go, and even weapons that did not exist in 1920 but he thought would exist 20 years later.
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
14,263
Reaction score
10,679
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate

Yea, the presence of U-boats off the US coast in both World Wars is well known.

But they were only trying to interdict shipping and transport, not invade. You can't bring in an invasion army by submarine, and Germany in both world wars did not have anywhere near the kind of fleet that would have been needed to pull off an invasion of the US.

For that you needed Battleships, destroyers, cruisers, tons of cargo and troop ships, landing craft, and by WWII aircraft carriers.

Germany never invested in these really, they were all about land occupation.
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I have been fascinated with Earl Ellis for decades, and have long wondered why there is no movie about his life. This is a man who literally saw WWII 20 years before it happened, named it's major goals and battlefields, predicted how it would go, and even weapons that did not exist in 1920 but he thought would exist 20 years later.


Probably because Maj. Ellis wasn't purged from the military like Gen. Billy Mitchell was or like so many in of our officers corps are being purged today for doing what they are suppose to do, speak out and tell the CnC and Congress their opinions.


So do you think Ellis drank himself to death or was murdered by the Japanese ?
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,343
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Yea, the presence of U-boats off the US coast in both World Wars is well known.

But they were only trying to interdict shipping and transport, not invade. You can't bring in an invasion army by submarine, and Germany in both world wars did not have anywhere near the kind of fleet that would have been needed to pull off an invasion of the US.

For that you needed Battleships, destroyers, cruisers, tons of cargo and troop ships, landing craft, and by WWII aircraft carriers.

Germany never invested in these really, they were all about land occupation.
I think the plan was to drive us back into isolationism. But eventual invasion was the end goal.
 

Quag

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
30,216
Reaction score
13,384
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think the plan was to drive us back into isolationism. But eventual invasion was the end goal.

I don't think they ever thought that far ahead. Maybe dreamt it but not so far as actively thinking about it.
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
14,263
Reaction score
10,679
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
So do you think Ellis drank himself to death or was murdered by the Japanese ?

If you look in the History area, I just posted a large post about Earl Ellis.

Honestly, I think he drank himself to death. He had been having problems with alcohol for years, and had been hospitalized multiple times prior to his death for symptoms of acute alcoholism (including in the Philippines).

However, I think that the Japanese quickly capitalized on the intelligence they seized after his death, and shortly afterwards started a massive build-up on their islands. Mostly based upon his notes.

Do I think they killed him? No. But do I think they would have if he had not killed himself? Very likely.
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
If you look in the History area, I just posted a large post about Earl Ellis.

Honestly, I think he drank himself to death. He had been having problems with alcohol for years, and had been hospitalized multiple times prior to his death for symptoms of acute alcoholism (including in the Philippines).

However, I think that the Japanese quickly capitalized on the intelligence they seized after his death, and shortly afterwards started a massive build-up on their islands. Mostly based upon his notes.

Do I think they killed him? No. But do I think they would have if he had not killed himself? Very likely.

Japan declared war on Germany during WW l and were fighting Germany in the Pacific before America joined the war. I believe their agenda was the "Mandate Islands", the Central Pacific the Micronesian Islands that were German territory before WW l.

The Cormoran
>" The German SMS Cormoran (pic) was a “merchant raider” (formerly the Russian SS Ryazan) that had been originally captured by the Germans from the Russians southeast of the Korean peninsula by the light cruiser, the SMS Emden on August 4, 1914. It was the first prize of World War I from the Russian empire.

On August 10, 1914, the newly armed merchant raider the Cormoran II was sailing through the South Pacific, pursued by Japanese warships. By December 14, it pulled into Apra Harbor which is a U.S. territory. She only had 50 tons of coal remaining in her bunkers.

Due to strained relations with the United States and Germany, the governor of Guam refused to supply the Cormoran II with more than a token amount of coal. They also ordered the ship to leave within twenty-four hours, or submit to detention. This standoff would go on for two years.

At some point, Governor William John Maxwell was involuntarily placed on “the sick list” and replaced by his subordinate, William P. Cronan. Cronan was of a different mind and decided that the German crew should be treated as guests. So they were allowed ashore where they were treated as minor celebrities. The ship was still not allowed to leave.

On April 7, 1917 the U.S. Congress officially declared war on Germany..."<

continue -> https://medium.com/known-unknowns/13-440339-144-617586-c9f32948b045
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Any combination of 2 of the 3 main allied powers would have defeated Germany it just would have taken longer.

Without all three, the defeat of The Axis would have been impossible.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I don't think they ever thought that far ahead. Maybe dreamt it but not so far as actively thinking about it.

Of course they were thinking about it, hence the reason for the developement of massive long range transport aircraft.
 

Quag

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
30,216
Reaction score
13,384
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Without all three, the defeat of The Axis would have been impossible.

No just would have taken longer.
All the resources in terms of production, raw materials, manpower were on their side. Add geography and it was shoe in for the allies
 

Quag

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
30,216
Reaction score
13,384
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Of course they were thinking about it, hence the reason for the developement of massive long range transport aircraft.

Such as???
The 2 main long range aircraft used were created as passenger liners (. then converted with varying degrees of success to military versions.
Lufthansa was a pride of the Nazis who used it for international prestige as well as training pilots but these aircraft were undoubtedly designed as civil aircraft not military.
Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Junkers Ju 290 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only long range bomber they actually developed as such was only given limited support by the Military who tried to turn it into a dive bomber!!! Still it was conceived as a weapon against Russia not the USA.
Heinkel He 177 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,343
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Must have missed that part, Where does he say he was going to invade the USA?
His ideology was to impose his doctrine world wide. Transport ships could have been sunk anywhere in the Atlantic, why would they need to patrol the waters of our east coast if there were not at least plans to do more than just patrol.
Or, like I said back us up into isolation.
 

Quag

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
30,216
Reaction score
13,384
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
His ideology was to impose his doctrine world wide. Transport ships could have been sunk anywhere in the Atlantic, why would they need to patrol the waters of our east coast if there were not at least plans to do more than just patrol.
Or, like I said back us up into isolation.

Same reason there were subs off the coast in ww1. Ocean is huge but if you patrol where the ships leave and enter port your chances increase significantly.
How does subs off the coast of the USA have anything to do with invading the USA?
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,343
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Same reason there were subs off the coast in ww1. Ocean is huge but if you patrol where the ships leave and enter port your chances increase significantly.
How does subs off the coast of the USA have anything to do with invading the USA?

Well, were they there for show?
 
Top Bottom