Debates
24 Oct 10
24 Oct 10
2 edits
Originally posted by TeinosukeThe French were in most of Africa. The people in the colonies were themselves breeding; not all of the Euro ethnics in the Americas were ever immigrants since the colonies were established.
If there had been no Americas, where would Europe have exported its surplus populations from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century? Were there other large territories (Africa, say?) that could have been settled with equal ease given European technological superiority to native populations? If so, then there might well be an equivalent to the United States elsewhere, that would have played a similar role in World War II.
Probably the Anglo-Indian population would be a much larger percentage of the people there; Germany's population would be larger, as would be England's...Ireland might be 100% UK territory...Oceania, Hawaii, Egypt, Middle East...
No other culture was as vulnerable as the indigenous Americans. Both technology and possibly more important disease were swapped around in the Old World from China to South Africa, creating stronger immune systems as well as stronger diseases.
EDIT - Iberia? Where would the Spaniards and Portuguese be? West Africa?
The Italians never did get much of an empire that time around, did they? Ethiopia might be more heavily Italian.
24 Oct 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatLend-Lease wasn't even passed until March 1941, so the Brits hung on in 1940 without anything from it.
Well, I know it was in the billions. And that doesn't include hundreds of millions of pounds worth of war materials which wouldn't have been available without US industry, at least fifty destroyers, hundreds of cargo ships of food and raw materials etc. Instead of the US fleet and incoming aid convoys, there would be hostile Japanese naval forces s ...[text shortened]... smarine in the the Atlantic. I just can't see Britain holding out under these circumstances.
24 Oct 10
Originally posted by no1marauderI see now how you have gained your reputation in this forum. I have read and responded to all the points you have made either directly or indirectly, and all without resorting to sarcastic jibes.
Here's a thought; try actually reading my posts.
They wouldn't because as I have already mentioned:
A) Most of their land forces were tied up in China;
B) The Soviet armies in the East had already smashed them twice;
C) There is nothing of any value to the Japanese ...[text shortened]... I can think of other reasons as well, but perhaps you should address some of those.
A) Most of their land forces were tied up in China;
A large proportion of their forces was dispersed throughout the Pacific theatre to defend against allied (mainly US) attack.
B) The Soviet armies in the East had already smashed them twice;
Giving them good cause to take advantage of an opportunity to strike back once the Soviets were being pressed by the German invasion in the West.
C) There is nothing of any value to the Japanese in Siberia;
Although a great deal of value in conquest of the Soviet Union.
D) There are far more tempting targets to the South;
Indeed, but with the British Empire so reduced and no US aid to promise future resurgence combined with no US threat, these targets would (i)have presented little military challenge, and (ii)still have been there after the Soviets had been defeated.
E) They had no reason to do the Nazis favors;
It's not so much about doing the Nazis favours as taking advantage of desirable opportunity.
24 Oct 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatWhat proportion of Japanese land forces were tied up in the Pacific prior to June 1941?
I see now how you have gained your reputation in this forum. I have read and responded to all the points you have made either directly or indirectly, and all without resorting to sarcastic jibes.
[b]A) Most of their land forces were tied up in China;
A large proportion of their forces was dispersed throughout the Pacific theatre to defend ag ...[text shortened]... ]
It's not so much about doing the Nazis favours as taking advantage of desirable opportunity.[/b]
Your response to B has already been refuted; the Soviets WERE being pressed by the Germans in reality but the Japanese did not intervene. Sorry, saying something over and over and over again does not enhance its lack of analytical value.
The Germans would have gotten the lion's share of the spoils and the Japanese would have gotten a slice of worthless land in Siberia. Hardly adequate incentive to take on a dangerous enemy.
The Japanese needed oil, so they would have had to attack the Dutch possessions in Indonesia anyway ASAP. Realistically, this would have brought them in conflict with Britain (as it did). So they could not have waited until after the USSR was defeated (something you seem to think would have taken a week, but in reality a difficult and arduous task that couldn't have been accomplished for years if at all).
There were no "desirable opportunities" in Siberia; just a difficult war for little gain. There were plenty of opportunities elsewhere.
24 Oct 10
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're right that the lend-lease agreement commenced in 1941, but this wasn't the beginning of US aid to the UK in WWII - ships, food, materials, aircraft, all on excellent terms and much of which was later incorporated into the lend-lease programme. Take the US out of the equation and we would have been quite unable to resist German aggression which would almost certainly have been greater without the American threat. In any case, by mid to late '42 the Britain and the allies were close to defeat in all theatres. Take out $20 plus billion dollars, vast, vast quantities of war materials of all kinds and I'm confident that Britain would have sought terms, and that the Germans would have made them favourable.
Lend-Lease wasn't even passed until March 1941, so the Brits hung on in 1940 without anything from it.
24 Oct 10
Originally posted by no1marauderI say again. The Japanese perceived the major threat to them as coming from American forces. Tell you what, you go ahead and look up the proportion of Japanese forces tied up in the Pacific campaign and then you'll see what I'm driving at. Without that threat why do you imagine that they would not have used those forces against their most obvious enemy?
What proportion of Japanese land forces were tied up in the Pacific prior to June 1941?
Your response to B has already been refuted; the Soviets WERE being pressed by the Germans in reality but the Japanese did not intervene. Sorry, saying something over and over and over again does not enhance its lack of analytical value.
...[text shortened]... Siberia; just a difficult war for little gain. There were plenty of opportunities elsewhere.
The Russians achieved their resurgence against the Germans by retreating to the undesirable lands in Siberia and utilising the undesirable resources that lay thereunder.
Frankly I can't see why you are arguing this point. Your position is untenable.
24 Oct 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatYour confidence isn't worth a nickel to me. Allowing German dominance of the continent including the USSR would have been suicide. Absent a credible German threat of invasion of the Home Islands that didn't exist, there would be no reason to seek terms. The failure of the Nazis to close the deal against the USSR in 1941 and their subsequent massive defeat in front of Moscow would have seriously damaged Hitler's bargaining power anyway.
You're right that the lend-lease agreement commenced in 1941, but this wasn't the beginning of US aid to the UK in WWII - ships, food, materials, aircraft, all on excellent terms and much of which was later incorporated into the lend-lease programme. Take the US out of the equation and we would have been quite unable to resist German aggression whic ...[text shortened]... that Britain would have sought terms, and that the Germans would have made them favourable.
Historically, the situation would have been almost identical to 1812 and Britain was not interested then in a deal giving Napoleon long term dominance over Europe; I don't think Churchill in 1942 would have been any more interested in giving Hitler that.
24 Oct 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatYou think the Soviets "retreated to Siberia"??? LMAO!!!!
I say again. The Japanese perceived the major threat to them as coming from American forces. Tell you what, you go ahead and look up the proportion of Japanese forces tied up in the Pacific campaign and then you'll see what I'm driving at. Without that threat why do you imagine that they would not have used those forces against their most obvious ...[text shortened]... ereunder.
Frankly I can't see why you are arguing this point. Your position is untenable.
Go read a history book and get back to me; I can't discuss this rationally with someone so ignorant of the facts.
24 Oct 10
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat little I remember was "East of the Urals". How far out of Europe did they end up going?
You think the Soviets "retreated to Siberia"??? LMAO!!!!
Go read a history book and get back to me; I can't discuss this rationally with someone so ignorant of the facts.
24 Oct 10
Originally posted by no1marauderOkay, maybe I overstated the value of Siberia, but I still think you are drastically under-estimating the part that the US played in the course of the war.
You think the Soviets "retreated to Siberia"??? LMAO!!!!
Go read a history book and get back to me; I can't discuss this rationally with someone so ignorant of the facts.
24 Oct 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe Soviet military never retreated East of the Urals. It is true that Stalin had planned and did move many factories from the European area of the Soviet Union East of the Urals and that these factories were critical in producing massive amounts of war materials that helped turn the tide. But it's an awful long walk from the Sino-Soviet border to those areas.
What little I remember was "East of the Urals". How far out of Europe did they end up going?
24 Oct 10
Here are some quite staggering figures regarding the deployment of the Japanese army:
October 1938, 94% Japan’s army, 66% of Japan’s navy, and 60% of Japan’s military aircraft – deployed in China.
In 1940, 87% of Japan’s army – 27 of Japan’s 31 divisions – deployed in China.
In late 1941, 95% of Japan’s army – 39 of Japan’s 41 divisions – deployed in China.
On 7 December 1941, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Japan had an army of 51 divisions and 39 independent brigades, of which:
•35 divisions and 38 independent brigades were in China – this meant 80% of Japan’s army was deployed in China
•only 11 divisions – less than 14% of Japan’s army – were deployed for ALL of the attacks on the “Day of Infamy” against the British and the US
http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Greater-East-Asia-War-and-WWII
By and large the Japanese army was tied up in China and they did not use large ground forces against the Western powers.
24 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI'll look it up in a bit more detail tomorrow, but I'd guess there were maybe some 20 divisions not engaged with the Chinese at the start of WWII. Included in that is the large garrison in the China-Russian border region though. They would need quite a couple of divisions to take the DEI, Philippines and Burma and quite a nice garrison should have been in position to block any commonwealth attacks from India. Then we should take into account that the Japanese land army had no tanks to speak of, little in the way of artillery, inferior small arms (maybe on par with badly equipped Soviet troops though) and pitiful logistics and an attack into Siberia would be a disaster. Japan was a naval power, but couldn't even bring a bunch of ill-equipped warlords down, they wouldn't stand a chance against a real land army.
Tell you what, you go ahead and look up the proportion of Japanese forces tied up in the Pacific campaign and then you'll see what I'm driving at.
Whether or not the UK would have settles a peace with the Nazis would be a long discussion, but I'd guess not. It's a moot point though as there is no way the Soviets would have surrendered. Without lend-lease the war would have been longer and the Soviets would have suffered a lot more, but in the end they would have prevailed by strength of numbers. The commitment of forces to garrison Western Europe should not be overestimated, a lot of these were 3rd rate troops and troops recovering and rebuilding after being decimated in the East. I'm quite glad we were liberated by Americans instead of Soviets though.