WWII historians: how long could the US have delayed war with Japan, if it wanted?

[Questerr]

I think there was a chance if, for example, the Battle of Britain had gone differently.

Even with total air supremacy over southern England (and that’s the best they could do, the Germans couldn’t achieve that over the Midlands or Northern England), the Germans still can’t pull of Sealion.

 

[Tigerace117]

We did see that the Japanese Empire was starved of oil and other resources, and the British followed our lead. Even though Holland was already conquered by the Nazis, we leaned on the Dutch East Indies government to embargo oil for the Empire, and it did.

That provoked the Empire.

Again, if the Japanese wanted to trade with the West they shouldn’t have invaded all of their invaders in a genocidal rampage across Asia.

 

[BitterPill]

The Germans could never have pulled off Operation Sealion. When the British War College at Sandhurst war gamed the scenario in the 1970’s, they gave the Germans every conceivable advantage (even if that advantage wasn’t realistic, like giving them naval supremacy in the Channel for 48 hours) and the Germans still lost.

Are you talking about this?

Operation Sea Lion (wargame) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Questerr]

Are you talking about this?

Operation Sea Lion (wargame) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The planned German operation it was based on, yes. There’s no way the Germans could have ever won.

The war game staff gave the Germans every conceivable advantage, even advantages that were totally unrealistic like giving them naval supremacy in the Channel for 48 hours, and Germany still lost. Basically once the Royal Navy reaches the Channel, any German invasion of Britain fails.

 

[BitterPill]

Even with total air supremacy over southern England (and that’s the best they could do, the Germans couldn’t achieve that over the Midlands or Northern England), the Germans still can’t pull of Sealion.

Total air superiority would have made the Nazi chances much better, and it would take the Nazis what, a few days, a week maybe, to rehabilitate a captured British aerodrome and start using it themselves.

 

[BitterPill]

The planned German operation it was based on, yes. There’s no way the Germans could have ever won.

The war game staff gave the Germans every conceivable advantage, even advantages that were totally unrealistic like giving them naval supremacy in the Channel for 48 hours, and Germany still lost. Basically once the Royal Navy reaches the Channel, any German invasion of Britain fails.

Not with the British getting so many freebies.

That game was rigged.

 

[Questerr]

Total air superiority would have made the Nazi chances much better, and it would take the Nazis what, a few days, a week maybe, to rehabilitate a captured British aerodrome and start using it themselves.

They had 150 Ju-52’s at the time when Sealion was actually possible (summer 1940). Considering the British will focus their efforts on shooting down those transports, and shelling the base to destroy whatever facilities it has and cratering its runways, there’s no way the Germans are going to be able to supply a force by air.

 

[Questerr]

Not with the British getting so many freebies.

That game was rigged.

What “freebies” did the British get? Actually having a Navy?

 

[bomberfox]

I do not think so, or at least not until Hitler invaded Russia.

We certainly had enough on the european front, even flying bombers to help liberate France but hey were talkin hypotheticals.

 

[Questerr]

Just watch this. It explains with references why a successful Sea Lion was impossible:

 

[BitterPill]

Again, if the Japanese wanted to trade with the West they shouldn’t have invaded all of their invaders in a genocidal rampage across Asia.

I am pretty sure the Empire's aversion to loss of face was a well known fact to our government, and provoking that aversion did the job.

Yet we were also provoked by the Empire's voracious appetite.

As far as I see it, the war came at a perfect moment for us, and the Nazis declaring war on the US a few days later was the cherry on the sundae.

 

[bomberfox]

Total air superiority would have made the Nazi chances much better, and it would take the Nazis what, a few days, a week maybe, to rehabilitate a captured British aerodrome and start using it themselves.

One mistake Goehring made was refusing to allow the production of heavy bombers so the germans would only have mediums.

 

[BitterPill]

They had 150 Ju-52’s at the time when Sealion was actually possible (summer 1940). Considering the British will focus their efforts on shooting down those transports, and shelling the base to destroy whatever facilities it has and cratering its runways, there’s no way the Germans are going to be able to supply a force by air.

According to this source, the Nazis made at least 120 in 1940 alone, so I am confident they had more than 150 in September of 1940. Consider, for example, that a few months into 1941 the Nazis invaded Crete using over 500 JU-52s:

More than 500 Ju-52/3ms dropped the four parachute regiments of the 7th Air Division onto the island and also ferried the 5th Mountain Division to Maleme airfield, which was captured on the second day. It was the first battle conducted entirely by paratroops and air landing forces.​

and in May of 1940 the Nazis used 'about 430 Ju-52s' to subdue the Belgians and Dutch.

Iron Annie: The Junkers Ju-52

The Junkers Ju-52 was versatile enough to meet the Luftwaffe’s ever-shifting transport missions.

warfarehistorynetwork.com

 

[swing_voter]

We did see that the Japanese Empire was starved of oil and other resources, and the British followed our lead. Even though Holland was already conquered by the Nazis, we leaned on the Dutch East Indies government to embargo oil for the Empire, and it did.

That provoked the Empire.

Oh, so Pearl Harbor is our fault after all!

I did not see that coming!


.

 

[Questerr]

One mistake Goehring made was refusing to allow the production of heavy bombers so the germans would only have mediums.

Germany could only produce so many aircraft engines. What do they not have so they can produce lots of these 4 engine bombers?

 

[bomberfox]

Germany could only produce so many aircraft engines. What do they not have so they can produce lots of these 4 engine bombers?

Meh good point.

 

[Questerr]

According to this source, the Nazis made at least 120 in 1940 alone, so I am confident they had more than 150 in September of 1940. Consider, for example, that a few months into 1941 the Nazis invaded Crete using over 500 JU-52s:

More than 500 Ju-52/3ms dropped the four parachute regiments of the 7th Air Division onto the island and also ferried the 5th Mountain Division to Maleme airfield, which was captured on the second day. It was the first battle conducted entirely by paratroops and air landing forces.​

and in May of 1940 the Nazis used 'about 430 Ju-52s' to subdue the Belgians and Dutch.

Iron Annie: The Junkers Ju-52

The Junkers Ju-52 was versatile enough to meet the Luftwaffe’s ever-shifting transport missions.

warfarehistorynetwork.com

And they took heavy losses during those operations to both hostile action and accidents.

There’s no way the Germans could have supplied an invasion of Britain by the air. Any attempt to do so would have turned out like the claim they could keep the 6th Army in Stalingrad supplied only from the air.

 

[BitterPill]

One mistake Goehring made was refusing to allow the production of heavy bombers so the germans would only have mediums.

I guess that was a mistake, though WW2 surely taught us that unescorted bombers could be vulnerable, but strategic bombing wasn't really part of the Nazi war doctrine. Close support for ground units was:

This article briefly examined salient events in the development of German doctrine in the period prior to World War II, demonstrating that it was grounded in operational-level and joint operations thinking. Such thinking was rooted in German theory and practical experience dating back to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, developed through successive conflicts up through World War I, successfully adjusted and tested during the Spanish Civil War, and then incorporated into the Wehrmacht planning during the first two years of World War II.​

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20150630_art013.pdf

 

[BitterPill]

And they took heavy losses during those operations to both hostile action and accidents.

There’s no way the Germans could have supplied an invasion of Britain by the air. Any attempt to do so would have turned out like the claim they could keep the 6th Army in Stalingrad supplied only from the air.

You said the Nazis had 150 Ju-52's available to invade Britain.

You are wrong.

 

[BitterPill]

Oh, so Pearl Harbor is our fault after all!

I did not see that coming!


.

If you say so.

I don't agree, but you can think what you want.

 

[BitterPill]

Germany could only produce so many aircraft engines. What do they not have so they can produce lots of these 4 engine bombers?

Agreed.

The Nazis had the Condor. While that aircraft had good range, it wasn't suited as a bomber.

 

[Questerr]

You said the Nazis had 150 Ju-52's available to invade Britain.

You are wrong.

Cool. They could have 2,000 of them and they wouldn’t have been able to successfully invade Britain. They aren’t conquering Britain with an air supplied force of light infantry that can be totally out of supply the instant the weather turns rainy and foggy (which Britain never has weather like that right?).

 

[Craig234]

Dude, you are wanting a scenario in which the US, *for no reason*, totally abandons it’s interests in East Asia. It’s not realistic. It wouldn’t happen.

Even the isolationists of the day supported cutting oil trade with Japan when they began committing blatant war crimes and seizing the colonies of European powers. The idea that the US was turn its back and do nothing is ridiculous.

My name isn't 'dude', and you are re-writing my position. I didn't advocate for anything. I specifically said, which you ignored, that I am not saying it would be a good idea.

The US WAS turning its back as far as war goes, if the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor. The thread topic is discussing a hypothetical of what would have happened had the US pursued peace and not challenged the Japanese expansion in Asia, not to debate how likely that was.

 

[Questerr]

My name isn't 'dude', and you are re-writing my position. I didn't advocate for anything. I specifically said, which you ignored, that I am not saying it would be a good idea.

The US WAS turning its back as far as war goes, if the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor. The thread topic is discussing a hypothetical of what would have happened had the US pursued peace and not challenged the Japanese expansion in Asia, not to debate how likely that was.

Not challenging the Japanese expansion in Asia is totally out of character for the United States of the time. It’s the “if only the Nazis weren’t Nazis” problem of your premise.

 

[swing_voter]

If you say so.

I don't agree, but you can think what you want.

We'll if we pushed Japan into attacking us, isn't the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor our fault?

Maybe Biden could apologize!


.