Posts made by 221B Baker Street

Kurt,

Excellent points, I appreciate you taking the time to discuss.  It is difficult, however, to assess what might have happened so there are no right or wrong answers.  What if this had happened, what if they had developed that…

A couple of more points I’d really like your opinion on if you (or others) have time:

1. How would the German ME262 compare to the UK built (and operational during WWII) Gloster Meteor jet in combat?  What about the Horton HO-229 vs. the Meteor ?  Or the US P-80?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me262
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229

My guess is that the Ho-229 would have ran circles around them all…but I cannot definitely say that since we don’t know what would have happened.

2. The German V-2 was an incredible advance unmatched by the Allies…or was it?  Consider what the American Robert Goddard developed decades before the Germans or the cold war space race between the US and USSR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard

Its a long read (but very well worth it), so I’ll simply quote from Werner Von Braun …

Don’t you know about your own rocket pioneer? Dr. Goddard was ahead of us all.

Wernher von Braun, when asked about Goddard’s work following World War II[84]

What if the US had invested even a small amount of money toward Goddards work (as they certainly would have had the V-2 or proposed V-3 really started affecting the Allied war effort)?

I’ve generally always played out the game as the dice is part of the game.  But under your conditions (limited game opportunities, checking out strategies, and the game itself takes a lot of time) , I don’t blame you for starting over…

It also depends quite a bit on who you are playing with whether or not to start over.

What is really important in life?  What make it worth living?  Gar made a good point that education won’t necessarily do it; it won’t even necessarily bring money.  Money also doesn’t necessarily make it worth living, as many actors, sports stars, etc. dripping with cash wind up crashing (hopefully Charlie won’t wind up there as has Lindsey Lohan).

Family?  Relationships?  Charlies many marriages seem to indicate no, but then he continues to try (this time with two “goddesses”).

But IF school will bring a sense of accomplishment, or will bring sufficient money for the comfort you want (which is a risk, just as is starting your own business or any endeavor) then I say go for it.

Is Charlie Sheen really getting what he wants?  Or just what he thinks he wants?  Time will tell, but I hope he is able to pull his life together…if not for his sake, then for the sake of his kids who deserve better from him.

There are actually two veterans remaining from WWI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I

Claude Choules fought in both WWI and WWII

Last living combatant of World War I.[1] Last seaman. Last veteran who served in both World Wars. Last male veteran. Joined in 1916. Last witness to the German Naval surrender. Moved to Australia in 1926 and served with Royal Australian Navy in World War II. Lives in Perth, Western Australia.[2][3][4][5]

Florence Green joined in 1918 and served as a waitress for the Women’s Royal Air Force.

It is sad to me that this conflict is no longer effectively a living history. The same will happen to WWII in a few years as well.  With the loss of these veterans, I worry that the adage “those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it” may well come true again.

Interesting set of articles (from what I can determine as the links are apparently broken).

No question that the German educational system (set up by Bismark in the mid 1800’s) and the German industrial capabilities let to some amazing technology during the war. I would also agree that part of this was due to the fact that by 1944 (and maybe sooner) only a revolutionary technology would win the war…Hitlers “wonder weapons”.

Still, I think there is too much emphasis on the German achievements and too little recognition of the allied “wonder weapons”; perhaps due to a respect for the Nazi scientists and engineers.  It is important to recognize that the allies had some amazing technological advances during this time as well.

1. The A-bomb developed during the Manhattan project.  While the USSR, UK, Germany, and Japan all had similar programs, only the US was able to develop this in time to make a difference in the war.  The USSR developed one later, based in large part from stolen technology   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_atomic_bomb_project

The scientific research was directed by noted Soviet nuclear physicist Igor Kurchatov, and benefited from highly successful espionage efforts on the part of the Soviet military intelligence. Ultimately the USSR tested its first nuclear weapon in August 1949.

.  The extent of the technology that needed to be developed to do this should not be underestimated.

2. the proximity fuse,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze

Vannevar Bush, head of the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) during this war, credited the proximity fuze with three significant effects:[9]

* First, it was important in defense from Japanese Kamikaze attacks in the Pacific. Bush **estimated a sevenfold increase in the effectiveness of 5-inch antiaircraft artillery with this innovation.[10]
   * It was an important part of the radar-controlled antiaircraft batteries that finally neutralized the German V-1 bomb attacks on England.[10]
   * Third, it was released for use in Europe just before the Battle of the Bulge. At first the fuzes were only used in situations where they could not be captured by the Germans. They were used in land-based artillery in the South Pacific in 1944. They were incorporated into bombs dropped by the U.S. Air Force on Japan in 1945, and they were used to defend Britain **against the V-1 attacks of 1944, achieving a kill ratio of about 79%. (They were ineffective against the much faster V-2 missiles.) There was no risk of a dud falling into enemy hands. The Pentagon decided it was too dangerous to have a fuze fall into German hands because they might reverse engineer it and create a weapon that would destroy the Allied bombers, or at least find a way to jam the radio signals. Therefore they refused to allow the Allied artillery use of the fuzes in 1944.
   * General Dwight D. Eisenhower protested vehemently and demanded he be allowed to use the fuzes. He prevailed and the VT fuzes were first used in the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944, when they made the Allied artillery far more devastating, as all the shells now exploded just before hitting the ground. **It decimated German divisions caught in the open. The Germans felt safe from timed fire because they thought that the bad weather would prevent accurate observation. U.S. general George S. Patton said that the introduction of the proximity fuze required a full revision of the tactics of land warfare.[11] (emphasis mine) had an incredible influence on the battlefield.  Had the Germans developed this (and they had a program to do so) in conjunction with the V2, I would assume a similar increase in effectiveness.  Yet it was the allies who developed it first and who benefited.

3. Radar - the allies radar and sonar capabilities were much more advanced than anything the axis had.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavity_magnetron

While radar was being developed during World War II, there arose an urgent need for a high-power microwave generator that worked at shorter wavelengths (around 10 cm (3 GHz)) rather than the 150 cm (200 MHz) that was available from tube-based generators of the time. It was known that a multi-cavity resonant magnetron had been developed and patented in 1935 by Hans Hollmann in Berlin.[14] However, the German military considered its frequency drift to be undesirable and based their radar systems on the klystron instead. But klystrons could not achieve the high power output that magnetrons eventually reached. **This was one reason that German night fighter radars were not a match for their British counterparts…The combination of small-cavity magnetrons, small antennas, and high resolution allowed small, high quality radars to be installed in aircraft. They could be used by maritime patrol aircraft to detect objects as small as a submarine periscope, which allowed aircraft to attack and destroy submerged submarines which had previously been undetectable from the air. Centimetric contour mapping radars like H2S improved the accuracy of Allied bombers used in the strategic bombing campaign. Centimetric gun-laying radars were likewise far more accurate than the older technology. They made the big-gunned Allied battleships more deadly and, along with the newly developed proximity fuze, made anti-aircraft guns much more dangerous to attacking aircraft. The two coupled together and used by anti-aircraft batteries, placed along the flight path of German V-1 flying bombs on their way to London, are credited with destroying many of the flying bombs before they reached their target.

4. Cryptography was better on the allied side, providing a critical intelligence advantage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cryptography#World_War_II_cryptography

The war was won by the allies because the Nazi’s failed to defeat the Soviet Union.  The Nazi wonder weapons were too little, too late but even if they had been developed soon enough, I think the Allied wonder weapons could have countered the Nazi’s.

That said, the technological breakthroughs, by both sides of the conflict, demonstrate impressive work by their scientists and engineers.********

Even after the fall of Poland, all was not lost on the Western front.

With better tactics, communication, and especially leadership, it is my opinion that the French and British could have stopped the Blitzkrieg in France.  No Dunkirk, no German occupation of France, etc.  That would have been an interesting turn of events…how would a Russian supported Germany fare against the French and British (with backing from the USA)?  With the Russian support, how effective would the Allied blockade be?  How long would the German-Russian alliance last before it fell apart?  Would Germany’s advance weapons (ME-262, V-2, etc.) enable a victory before the superior resources of the UK and French empires (with the industrial might of the USA) overwhelmed her?  What would Japan do different (if anything)?

Regarding the Poles, I think in the event of a German victory, they would fare about the same as they did under the Soviets.  The Germans would probably have either exterminated the Russians, or pushed them past the Urals.  The Poles would have been moved to the Russian terrritory (but they were somewhat moved into former German territory after WWII by the Russians).  Not much difference in my opinion, though I think culturally, the loss of the “homeland” of Polish cities like Warsaw would be a difficult thing for the Polish culture.

@ABWorsham:

" Get your hands off me you damn dirty ape."

Funny….that is what the babes said to me…     :? :-D

I’ve always been impressed with the numbers of WWI vets who also either served or otherwise had wartime experiences during WWII.  I don’t have any actual statistics, but anecdotally many of the WWI vet stories I have heard also included what they did (often fighting) during WWII as well.  Should not really be unexpected as someone who fought in WWI would have been in their early to mid 40’s during WWII, not the best soldier material (with age comes a loss of physical ability) but certainly capable of performing as necessary.  And this was often necessary ( for example, considering the severe shortage of manpower Germany had towards the end, all the WWI vets were recalled to duty in that country).

Really kinda points out to me the “total war” concept that was WWII.  Makes it also personal as I’m not yet that old…it could have been me fighting in two world wars had I been born at the right time.

So the last US doughboy passed away Sunday.  He will be missed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022800165.html??hpid=top

@Herr:

Raoul Wallenberg. He saved thousands of lives.

This is exactly who I was thinking of, but you beat me to it.

Instead guess I will have to say Dietrich von Choltitz who disobeyed Hitlers orders to destroy Paris before the Allies arrived and prevented chaos within the city, eventually surrendering to the Allied forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_von_Choltitz

Sorry for the lateness of my reply, I have been busy lately.  But I have enjoyed this conversation, and wish to continue with it further…@Imperious:

I am assuming that the conquest of Europe, Asia, Africa and South America and the inclusion of various new allies whom all want a piece of the new order would sustain them against any American issues. The totality of occupation of the middle east and all resource rich areas would trump anything US could compete with, but most importantly the combined manpower working for axis aims would totally overwhelm the US. IN 1945 id say the population would be close to 3.5 billion and 3.2 billion would be under axis control against 300K in United States.

I understand and agree the USA could never compete (at least long-term) with the rest of the world.  This is indisputable.

It would only be a matter of time before US was forced to sue for peace having lost all trading partners and exhausted manpower, while the Axis players had new groups of people enlisted in their efforts ( all the middle east nations would have been used a foreign armies employed to help exterminate jews and other peoples). What you say might happen would never come before USA was liquidated long before. The Nazis would have invented even greater means of efficiency at extermination on a scale unimaginable.  The expansion of labor camps and other means would have accelerated the program they had to really limit due to the war.

I agree the Germans would have implemented a mass extermination of all non desirable peoples.  The extermination of Jews took precedence before vital war needs during WWII.  Having acheived victory, can anyone doubt their program would not be accelerated?  But this proves, to an extent, why America and Canada would win.  It would not be 100M N. Americans vs. 3.2B people for the Axis.  It would be the 100 million N. Americans against only the Germans plus the “desirable” races.  That would be some of the Europeans (but not the Russians and other slavs), and some of the European settlers in Africa and Latin America.  Maybe this would include the Japanese as well. I don’t know the actual numbers, but I suspect you would agree this is a much different scenario as the billions of Asians, Africans, etc. would not be participating for the most part.

Also, as Kurt pointed out, the German-Japanese alliance would be likely to fail in the same manner that the German-Russia alliance failed with the start of Operation Barbarossa.

The capability of Yugoslavia did not even remotely resemble any threat to German control over this area, even with scarce resources employed in this task.

My links indicated there were entire areas within Yugoslavia where the Serbs, not the Germans had complete control.  True, the Germans could have moved into any single one of these if they wanted, but clearly they lacked the manpower to do so unless they absolutely had to.  Now a conquered Russia would have freed up troops, but also required a defense against similar activities over vast landscapes and a guard at the Siberian border.  This would consume a significant amount of resources…but  I agree the resource allocation would be only temporary so maybe this buys the USA only a few years of assistance.

The end of the war would have brought unimaginable pressure in the goal of this plan of extermination. Defeated enemies deprived of any government or ability to produce war material, would not just raise up against the new empires. Of course a few railways would get blown up and terrorist activities would occur, but the overall control would remain firmly in German and Japanese hands.

Why not?  Why wouldn’t Hitler be taken out in a coup (there were several attempts during the war) and the German territory broken up into multiple warring sections (either into geographical sections or a true civil war)?  Certainly there would be considerable differences within this new German alliance… This, I think, would have been a distinct possibility.

Anyway, these are my thoughts, I look forward to the opinions of others if they wish to share.

IL,

The whole point to Germany taking over Eastern Europe (and likewise Japans conquests) is to be able to compete with the industrial output of the USA, which as shown previously was significantly greater than that of Germany.

However, the commitment of millions of soldiers to control these areas means these soldiers are not available to assist with the German war effort against the attacks from the USA (whether by strategic bombing or operation overlord).  Now once Germany was successful in liquidating these populations as you say (which as you say and as shown by example in Yugoslavia would take decades), then these forces would be available, but…

without the production of the people in these conquered areas, German does not have this extra income.  Therefore Germany still doesn’t have enough industrial production to compete.  It is a catch 22 for Germany, the production comes from the people and the Nazis wouldn’t have that.

Slave labor camps?  This halfway solution, I think, provides the worst of both worlds as it still requires large numbers of military forces but with a declining production in comparison.

Jurasic park.  I think would have an easier time outsmarting the velociraptors than the apes.  The apes were industrialized while the dinosaurs were not.  Also, the raptors were not specifically looking for primates, whereas the apes were.

IL, while I fail to see any checks and balances in the colonization of Africa (it seems to me a mad rush to conquest by all industrialized nations without any decency) perhaps better examples exist during the actual war.  But first, I want to clarify the actual German intent for conquered areas.  The formal plan was Generalplan Ost:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

After the war, under the “Big Plan”, Generalplan Ost foresaw the deportation of 45 million non-Germanizable people from Eastern Europe, of whom 31 million were “racially undesirable”, 100% of Jews, Poles (85%), Belorussians (75%) and Ukrainians (65%), to West Siberia,[2] and about 14 millions were to remain, but were to be treated as slaves.[4] In their place, up to 8-10 million Germans would be settled in an extended “living space” (Lebensraum). Because the number of Germans appeared to be insufficient to populate the vast territories of Eastern Europe, the peoples judged to lie racially between the Germans and the Russians (Mittelschicht), namely, Latvians, Estonians, and even Czechs, were also supposed to be resettled there.

Where even the Germans could see their population was insufficient for such a vast area, necessitating keeping at least some of the native populations present.  Now how many German soldiers would be necessary to keep the 14 million within the boundaries under control and also hold a defensible border against incursions (both direct and infiltration for guerrilla warfare) from the Ural or Caucasians?  Considering the vast size of Russia, that would be a very considerable number of German soldiers and considering the Nazi experience during the war in Yugoslavia, I doubt the Nazis would have found E. Europe worth the effort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Partisans

The occupying forces instituted such severe burdens on the local populace that the Partisans came not only to enjoy widespread support but for many were the only option for survival. In certain instances, Axis forces and local collaborators would hang or shoot indiscriminately, including women, children and the elderly, up to 100 local inhabitants for every one German soldier killed. Furthermore, the country experienced a breakdown of law and order, with collaborationist militias roaming the countryside terrorizing the population. The government of the puppet Independent State of Croatia found itself unable to control its territory in the early stages of the occupation, resulting in a severe crackdown by the Ustaše militias and the German army.

Note that in Yugoslavia, harsh oppression resulted in more resistance because once the population has nothing left to lose, they have no choice but to fight back.  Also note that the Germans were unable to control all of Yugoslavia…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Front

The Partisans fought an increasingly successful guerrilla campaign against the Axis occupiers and their local collaborators, the Serbian Government of National Salvation, the Ustaše-controlled Independent State of Croatia, and the Chetniks (which they also considered collaborators). They enjoyed gradually increased levels of success and support of the general populace, and succeeded in controlling large chunks of Yugoslav territory. People’s committees were organized to act as civilian governments in areas of the country liberated by the Partisans. In places, even limited arms industries were set up.

which means they would likewise have trouble controlling all of Russia.  Now I realize that most German forces were fighting in Russia at that time, but this still points out the difficulties, and immense cost, of eliminating resistance by brutal force.

With these difficulties, how much effort would Germany have been able to use to continue the battle against the USA?

Zooey and IL, thank you for your input on this matter.

Your responses indicate that you both believe sufficient use of brutal tactics would be sufficient to eventually establish sufficient control over a conquered territory such that the net benefits exceed the costs.  Though I still disagree that this is always the case (and I disagree this would have been the case regarding the Soviet and Chinese territories during the 1940s and onward had the axis managed to extend the war  as per the assumptions under this thread); your thoughtful responses have made me think about this subject further.

To begin with, I decided to think about past events which bear similarities.

Some examples where this type of actions may have succeeded:
   The settlement of the USA and Canada, maybe even parts of Latin America.
   Minor boundary changes in Europe (such as Alsace and Lorraine).
   Settlement of Australia and New Zealand.

Some examples where this type of action did not succeed:
   European colonies in Africa and India
   Vietnam for the USA and Afghanistan for the USSR
   American colonization in the Philippines

Which of these most resemble the Axis efforts?  Any other examples which may be more similar?

What specifics would have lent a measure of success (or failure) for the axis.  I would submit that the distinction that would have resulted in ultimate failure to assimilate the annexed areas into the Axis is the very large number of inhabitants present in conquered Europe and Asia.  As the Russians and Chinese (not the mention the rest of the conquered territories) greatly outnumbered the Germans and Japanese, I do not think assimilation or annihilation would have been possible.  Your thoughts?

It isn’t so easy to beat a population into submission.  Using inhumane tactics often leaves the population with powerful grievances nothing left to lose, and therefore creates more resistance.  Granted, this can be possible as shown by Stalin’s work in Chechnya…where by shipping most of the population to Siberian gulags, this was temporarily achieved.  By the way, how is Chechnya working out today (about 70 years later) for Russia?  How did Afghanistan work out for Russia?  It is telling they left because it was simply too expensive for them to continue; which will eventually be what happens to the US in Afghanistan as well.

If an invader wishes to annex a large territory by force against a large population (and Chechnya is quite small) who are opposed, the armed forces can never leave.  That is my point…much of the German war machine would be forced in holding actions in Russia. Spending this kind of resources would not leave much for the Germans to use against the USA, though of course they would have sufficient oil and other resources they needed as somewhat of a tradeoff.

The USA could not outproduce Germany?  Before the war the USA industrial output exceeded that of the combined axis by quite a bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

Lets take 1942 as the base year.  The USA alone had industrial output of 1235 compared to an Axis combined of 902 (units of billion international dollars, 1990 price) which includes the help from their conquests.  Under the assumption of the fall of Russia, we could maybe add their full total of 274 and the Axis production would still be less…1176 < 1235.  I would also suggest that the Russian scorched earth policy would prevent this from ever happening.

Now the addition of the $353 from the UK would potentially have the axis at a greater level than the US…1529 > 1235…except from this we should subtract Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand, S. Africa, etc. as well as whatever scorched earth policy the UK enacted.

I wasn’t able to find numbers of the industrial ouput for the parts of the British empire without the UK, but it is significant.  See for example, Canada alone had a very substantial industrial production…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada_during_World_War_II

Over the course of the war, 1.1 million Canadians served in the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Of these more than 45,000 lost their lives and another 54,000 were wounded.[5]The financial cost was $21,786,077,519.12, between the 1939 and 1950 fiscal years.[6] By the end of the War, Canada had the world’s fourth largest air force,[7] and third largest navy.[8] As well, the Canadian Merchant Navy completed over 25,000 voyages across the Atlantic.[9] Canadians also served in the militaries of various Allied countries.

Regarding the A-bomb.  Yes, we only had three in 1945.  How many thousand (or tens of thousands) did we have in 1955?  Had the war continued, no doubt more would continue to be built.  And regarding a delivery system, which would be easier to develop/reverse engineer, the A-bomb or the V-2?  We would have developed a suitable delivery system, I think, before the Axis could have duplicated the manhattan project.

I’m not sure the fall of England and the USSR would mean certain, even if delayed, defeat of the USA.

Its one thing to take a country, quite another to hold it.  The cost of taking a nation by force pales in comparison to the cost of occupying.  The Japanese pretty much was maxing out its army just to hold E. Asia.  They didn’t have the manpower to take and hold all of China, let alone India, Australia, etc. let alone invade the USA.  Had Germany defeated the USSR, they would have needed most of their army just to hold the vast area of Western USSR.  The axis wouldn’t have enough resources to hold these gains and conduct any offensive actions at the same time.

Even if offensive actions against the USA were possible, that doesn’t mean that they would prevail.  The industrial production of the USA was greater than the combined production of the Axis…simply put, the USA was still a giant.  And having some incredible technological advances beyond the capabilities of the Axis such as advanced radar, sonar, the proximity fuse, high octane airplane fuel, etc.

Even besides this, there was always the A-bomb option for the USA…how many nuked european cities would Hitler permit before suing for peace?  It is highly unlikely they could have developed their own before being forced to come to terms favorable to the USA.

wow, this thread was nearly 10 years old.

Hard to say for sure why the creators decided this, perhaps someone who knows will reply.

why limit yourself to one or the other?

Consider Shaquille O’Neal.  Best known for a dominating center, but also was a music star, an actor, police officer (granted he was only a reserve officer),and is working on his PhD, among other projects.  Follow Shaq’s lead and do both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaquille_O'Neal#Off_court

All I can say is that the best AA player is definitely NOT me.

But you might want to clarify, or specify, what version of AA since an expert on one game version might be only average on another.