Random question that occurred to me… you have access to a time machine, and you can go back in time to shortly before any historical battle of your choice, and you can bring with you a detailed printed-out description of one side’s entire battle plan, order of battle, objectives, etc, which you will then give to the other side.
(For purposes of this hypothetical, let’s assume that the people you give it to will be able to read the language, understand the maps, will believe that the document is authentic, and will be able to communicate this information up to whoever is in charge on their side, and this happen with sufficient time to spare that they can meaningfully react to that information.)
Your objective here is not to change history for the better or anything, rather it is to have the largest possible impact on the outcome of a war, the more important the war the better. So feel free to help out the Nazis if you like.
My initial guess, and the motivation for this thread, is a claim I’ve heard several times that the German Blitzkrieg into France in 1940 started with moving a TON of men and tanks through a vulnerable narrow road through a generally difficult-to-traverse forest where a fairly small amount of artillery in the right place could have had a massively disproportionate impact. But that kinda sounds like one of those little factoids which isn’t nearly as meaningful as it sounds once you dig in. But if that’s true, that’s my nomination. Aside from that I guess we’re looking for a pivotal battle early in a war in which secrecy/deception played a particularly large role.
I don’t have any examples which meet all your criteria, but the first roughly analogous situation I can think of is at Waterloo. I would tell Nappy: Keep Grouchy close to yourself and Ney. Don’t let him go off wandering after Prussians.
He still might have lost, but at least he wouldn’t have gone in significantly outnumbered.
Yeah, the outcome of that particular battle might have been different, but what changes after that? I’ve actually heard it argued that the US would have been in WORSE shape in some ways, as they would have still had all their battleships, meaning they would have tried to use their battleships, meaning it would have taken them longer to realize that battleships were pretty much obsolete.
I agree that Midway is a better choice, but what are the long-term effects of a Japanese victory at Midway. No way Japan ever invades the US, no way the US agrees to any kind of armistice, and eventually we get the bomb… Maybe Australia gets invaded?
A lot changes if you not only save the fleet from being sunk, you know where to position your ships so you can destroy the Japanese fleet. It was a risky maneuver for the Japanese. It’s not like they had a surplus of carriers. Sink all of there carriers near Hawaii and it changes things considerably.
I wonder how much intel would have changed the Battle of Hastings. Would Stamford Bridge have happened? Could more English levies be raised? I don’t know.
I dunno… it likely lets the US win faster. But the US won anyhow, and everything I know about it (granted, not a huge or deep amount) indicates that that outcome was pretty much certain from day 1.
In fact, it’s pretty easy to envision a scenario in which the US pushes back across the pacific, surrounds the Japanese home islands 18 months or so earlier than in real history, and then just hangs out for a while waiting for the bomb to be ready rather than mounting a horrifically costly invasion.
Battle of Edgehill 1642
Disorganised and indecisive first battle of the English Civil War. Claimed as a victory by both sides.
If by having possession of the Roundheads battle plans the Royalists had resoundingly won the day (including capturing Cromwell who arrived too late to take part in the action), the Parliamentarian’s cause would have been snuffed out at the first confrontation.
How do you think McClellan got Lee’s plans for Antietam? Me! How do you think I got the name Smiling Bandit? Stole 'em. Course, that guy still screwed it up. Oh well, I had fun testing the alternative history theory.
In order to say how effective leaking the war plans would be, we have to know how far in advance the plans would be leaked. 48 hours may not have changed the outcome of Pearl Harbor, but several weeks might have.
This might be a slight variation, but I’d take photos of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the punters in charge in Japan and tell then to FFS Surrender before this happens.
Ideally the war would still have ended but a heap of civilians wouldn’t have been killed.
They didn’t surrender after the first bomb was actually dropped and still argued about it after the second. I don’t think pictures would have much impact.
I’d have gone back to 1978 and told David Letterman to work a little more on his tire-running and wall-climbing - otherwise Billy Crystal is going to kick his ass.
If the US has 48 hours of warning about Pearl Harbor, and is absolutely convinced that it is genuine, how could that possibly NOT make a difference? If nothing else, seems like the US could easily:
(1) Get all their fighters in the air
(2) Have all the antiaircraft guns manned
(3) Steam a bunch of battleships out of the harbor so they’re scattered around and moving, not just lined up like dominos
Seems like that would pretty much change everything, and that’s ignoring that with this hypothetical the US would also know basically exactly where the Japanese carriers were going to be…
I agree with Gorsnak that this wouldn’t change the outcome of WWII, but it would be very interesting to see how the cold war period changed if the Soviets ended up occupying all of Germany. Or, for that matter, what happens near the end of the War if Germany is fighting on only a single front. Does the entire German governmental apparatus start fleeing west past the actual pre-war borders?
(Does anyone know if we had a plan to try D-Day again if it failed miserably? Or would we just go throw everything into the Italian front or something?)