# Lets discuss the consequences of slight alterations in the course of WW2 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 28, 2010, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-consequences-of-slight-alterations-in-the-course-of-ww2/548364 "2010-07-28T21:06:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![EvilTOJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EvilTOJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EvilTOJ)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-consequences-of-slight-alterations-in-the-course-of-ww2/548364/61 "2010-07-31T08:22:47Z")
What if Hitler had actually gotten into, and done well in, art school? Now there’s something I would do, go back in time and pay off the exam admissions to let him actually be an emo loser who paints all day. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-consequences-of-slight-alterations-in-the-course-of-ww2/548364/62 "2010-07-31T11:52:05Z")
> [@Askance](#): > > Sealion had, in essence, zero chance of success. The RN had committed itself to destruction in the English Channel to stop an invasion, and that’s it folks - show’s over. The RN at this point is still stronger than every other major nation’s navy PUT TOGETHER. No, the Royal Navy had about as many ships as the US navy, due to the Washington Treaty. In practise, it was weaker than both the US and Japanese fleets, due to a lack of investment in naval aviation. But yes, Sealion had very little chance of success. ---
**Author:** ![Gregg64](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9f8e36/32.png) [@Gregg64](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gregg64)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-consequences-of-slight-alterations-in-the-course-of-ww2/548364/63 "2010-07-31T14:13:44Z")
On December 7th, 1941, Halsey is North of Pearl Harbor and sees the Japanese planes fly over. He attacks and destroys the Japanese carriers that have no planes to defend themselves. Japan is still at war with the US but without a good part of their navy. MacArthur disperses the B17s at Clark and defends the Phillipines, and Singapore does not fall. Throws a few wrenches into the Pacific war? ---
**Author:** ![detop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bcef8e/32.png) [@detop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/detop)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-consequences-of-slight-alterations-in-the-course-of-ww2/548364/64 "2010-07-31T15:57:05Z")
> [@Gregg64](#): > > \**MacArthur disperses the B17s at Clark and defends the Phillipines (sic)**, and Singapore does not fall. > > Throws a few wrenches into the Pacific war? (bolding mine) How about : instead of procrastinating, MacArthur launches a strike against Formosa and catch the Japanese air force on the ground (quite possible, the attack on Clark was delayed because of fog, which could have cleared up when the bomber reached the fields), also, he could have moved faster to disperse the supplies to Bataan and ensure a longer defense of the peninsula. Do you have an idea that I don’t like MacArthur ? ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-consequences-of-slight-alterations-in-the-course-of-ww2/548364/65 "2010-08-02T02:09:51Z")
> [@Otara](#): > > My understanding is that while the planes were fine, their radar was quite vulnerable? > > Ie if the germans had realised its significance and connection to ground control, the RAF fighter effectiveness would have been greatly reduced and bombing effectiveness much greater. > > Otara Well yes, but a radar mast is hard to permanently kill. It’s an open metalwork structure. The Germans already had a habit of bombing an airfield once and then crossing it off the map with red pencil, as if they had permanently obliterated it. Normally though it was back in use within a day; assuming they brought that same arrogance to the radar installation bombing I don’t see it coming out any different. And of course as soon as they switch to bombing cities they have no chance of beating the RAF, so no Sealion, radar or not. ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-consequences-of-slight-alterations-in-the-course-of-ww2/548364/66 "2010-08-02T02:13:19Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > > [@Askance](#): > > > > Sealion had, in essence, zero chance of success. The RN had committed itself to destruction in the English Channel to stop an invasion, and that’s it folks - show’s over. The RN at this point is still stronger than every other major nation’s navy PUT TOGETHER. > > No, the Royal Navy had about as many ships as the US navy, due to the Washington Treaty. In practise, it was weaker than both the US and Japanese fleets, due to a lack of investment in naval aviation. > > But yes, Sealion had very little chance of success. Well, I was discounting naval air as that was irrelevant in any potential battle in the English Channel. But yes, I was overstating matters; nevertheless once the RN decides to commit itself to stop Sealion, it is stopped. Game over. ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-consequences-of-slight-alterations-in-the-course-of-ww2/548364/67 "2010-08-02T02:22:50Z")
> [@Kilmore](#): > > > [@Askance](#): > > > > This posits that the Japanese weren’t the Japanese, but some other culture altogether. The Japanese naval culture was to destroy the enemy navy, and then the enemy merchant marine would be irrelevant. In part this stemmed from the 1905 Port Arthur victories, so the Japanese Navy’s entire culture was built around the decisive victory over the enemy navy. The other part was Japanese military honour (ie the emanations from the Samurai culture) which said that the only honourable victory was over the enemy’s military. There are recorded occasions when the admiral of a Japanese fleet stood on the bow of the foremost naval unit in order to enter battle first; glory and honour was to be won by the greatest eagerness to enter battle on the Emperor’s behalf rather than to actually, you know, win. > > One of the great problems with the Japanese military efforts in WWII is that support services were entirely lacking in honour and so the lowest, most useless, people were allocated to them. If you had any personal honour you wanted to be in the front line and nothing - **nothing** - else mattered. > > > > No. How? > > I completely agree with you about the Japanese. Everything happens for a reason. But it because happened like that, we can discuss “what would happen?” Instead of “How did that happen?” > > Seeing that the US shipped supplies to Russia via Vladivostok, it looks like the supply line threaded straight through Japanese waters, and if they wanted to it wouldn’t have been too much bother for them to squash it. If they _had_ decided to use their large numbers of bombers and submarines to attack the supply line they would have either have plugged off a vital lifeline to Russia, or if the US decided to fight over it they would have all kinds of glorious battle home delivered to them. Those US supplies were in Russian[-flagged] ships. If Japan attacks them they are at war with Russia as well as the USA, and Russia had just handed Japan’s arse to them on a plate in 1938. They were never going to risk that again. Plus, every bomber and sub attacking them is not attacking US and UK naval assets elsewhere in the Pacific. > [@](#): > > I understand that US supplies kept the Russians alive during 42, but then again I’m an American and I might be getting biased information. > > And I also read that it was Russia’s far east reinforcements that gave them the boost they needed at Stalingrad. If Japan became involved with Russia in the east, they wouldn’t be available. By 1942 the Russian campaign is all over, Germany had to win in 1941 if at all. The German’s Stalingrad campaign was a huge sucker-punch that mostly hit empty air; the Russians knew exactly where and when it was coming and with how many men (due to the Lucy spy ring). They allowed the Germans just enough progress into Stalingrad itself to keep them feeding men into the meat grinder that they couldn’t afford to lose until the Russians were good and ready. You may be thinking of the fabled Siberian reinforcements that “saved Moscow” in 1941; suffice to say that’s something of a historical myth and well overstated. But it is true that had Japan attacked Russian on land in mid-to-late 1941 it would certainly have helped the Germans, and this indeed may be their best, maybe only, change to win in 1941. But as I say above that was simply never going to happen, in fact it’s most likely that Japan attacked in the Pacific when they did precisely because it was now clear that Russia was too engaged in Europe to take on Japan in the foreseeable future. ---
**Author:** ![detop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bcef8e/32.png) [@detop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/detop)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-consequences-of-slight-alterations-in-the-course-of-ww2/548364/68 "2010-08-02T19:02:49Z")
Another small one : the RN doesn’t intercept the _Bismarck_ in May 1941, allowing it to reach the French ports after a successful raiding cruise. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-consequences-of-slight-alterations-in-the-course-of-ww2/548364/69 "2010-08-02T20:09:55Z")
My understanding is that the raid on Pearl Harbor failed to destroy the refueling facilities there, without which Pearl Harbor would have been useless as a base for six months. True? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-consequences-of-slight-alterations-in-the-course-of-ww2/548364/70 "2010-08-02T20:13:21Z")
You guys do play _Hearts of Iron_, right? You can wargame out whatever scenario you want. ---
**Author:** ![Bookkeeper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bookkeeper/32/281_2.png) [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-consequences-of-slight-alterations-in-the-course-of-ww2/548364/71 "2010-08-02T23:21:45Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Here’s a small change with perhaps major consequences. As happened historically, young King Michael of Yugoslavia, who is anti-Nazi, asserts his adulthood, deposing pro-Axis regent Prince Paul. In real life, Hitler’s reaction was to divert a large portion of the Barbarossa-bound forces south to invade and conquer Yugoslavia, delaying Barbarossa for six weeks and tying down a large group of forces fighting Serb and Croat Resistance for the remainder of the war. > > In my hypothetical, Hitler instead dispatches Scorzeny and his team to assassinate Michael, and perhaps a few of the pro-Ally Yugoslav politicians. Ex-Regent Prince Paul takes the throne as King Paul, reappoints his pro-Axis government, and Barbarossa kicks off on the original planned date. Germany has six more weeks of good weather to invade, Russia has six less weeks to prepare (and they were caught off guard in real life anyway, even though they’d begun preparations on a don’t-trust-Hitler basis). What the different results of the invasion may have been, I’m not military buff enough to evaluate. But I got the distinct impression that Barbarossa was a “near miss” – that it came close to strategic success, in terms of cutting out the Soviets as a major player in the war, even if they continued to fight on after losing Moscow, Stalingrad, (Leningrad?), and the Caucasus oil fields. It’s debatable how much help an earlier start to Barbarossa would have been, as much of the extra six weeks would have been lost waiting for the muddy roads to dry out due to the later than usual spring thaw in 1941. Besides, given an earlier start, the German logistics would likely just have collapsed that much earlier - the failure to take Moscow was as much due to the exhaustion of the German spearpoint and the inability of the German supply lines to bring forward the required fuel, ammo, and other supplies as to the autumn mud. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-consequences-of-slight-alterations-in-the-course-of-ww2/548364/72 "2010-08-04T21:10:18Z")
The Remilitarization of the Rhineland was a bold gambit, Hitler wasn’t so sure France and England would allow it. All German soldiers had standing orders to haul ass out of there if anyone started shooting. Could war have been prevented if the Treaty of Versailles concessions were held to? ---
**Author:** ![fiddlesticks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddlesticks/32/18129_2.png) [@fiddlesticks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fiddlesticks)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-consequences-of-slight-alterations-in-the-course-of-ww2/548364/73 "2010-08-04T22:19:06Z")
Trinity Test fizzles (perhaps with some help from a Soviet spy monkeywrenching the physics as Los Alamos), leaving an invasion of Japanese home islands a necessity. The Soviets are more than happy to join the US in the 1946 invasion of Japan, which results a year of slaughter before a working American atomic bomb ends the war. But the islands are ultimately divided into Russian and American occupation zones. The Cold War in Asia gets a little more interesting with a divided Japan I think. ---
**Author:** ![Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-consequences-of-slight-alterations-in-the-course-of-ww2/548364/74 "2010-08-04T23:20:38Z")
> [@fiddlesticks](#): > > Trinity Test fizzles (perhaps with some help from a Soviet spy monkeywrenching the physics as Los Alamos), leaving an invasion of Japanese home islands a necessity.. This has a personal slant for me. My Dad was in the marines and was involved in several island invasions. I figure if not for the bomb, Dad would quite possibly have been killed during the invasion of the home islands, long before I was born. ---
**Author:** ![Damfino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Damfino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damfino)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-consequences-of-slight-alterations-in-the-course-of-ww2/548364/75 "2010-08-06T21:29:44Z")
> [@Bookkeeper](#): > > > [@Polycarp](#): > > > > Here’s a small change with perhaps major consequences. As happened historically, young King Michael of Yugoslavia, who is anti-Nazi, asserts his adulthood, deposing pro-Axis regent Prince Paul. In real life, Hitler’s reaction was to divert a large portion of the Barbarossa-bound forces south to invade and conquer Yugoslavia, delaying Barbarossa for six weeks and tying down a large group of forces fighting Serb and Croat Resistance for the remainder of the war. > > > > In my hypothetical, Hitler instead dispatches Scorzeny and his team to assassinate Michael, and perhaps a few of the pro-Ally Yugoslav politicians. Ex-Regent Prince Paul takes the throne as King Paul, reappoints his pro-Axis government, and Barbarossa kicks off on the original planned date. Germany has six more weeks of good weather to invade, Russia has six less weeks to prepare (and they were caught off guard in real life anyway, even though they’d begun preparations on a don’t-trust-Hitler basis). What the different results of the invasion may have been, I’m not military buff enough to evaluate. But I got the distinct impression that Barbarossa was a “near miss” – that it came close to strategic success, in terms of cutting out the Soviets as a major player in the war, even if they continued to fight on after losing Moscow, Stalingrad, (Leningrad?), and the Caucasus oil fields. > > It’s debatable how much help an earlier start to Barbarossa would have been, as much of the extra six weeks would have been lost waiting for the muddy roads to dry out due to the later than usual spring thaw in 1941. Besides, given an earlier start, the German logistics would likely just have collapsed that much earlier - the failure to take Moscow was as much due to the exhaustion of the German spearpoint and the inability of the German supply lines to bring forward the required fuel, ammo, and other supplies as to the autumn mud. I had always thought that the delay was owing to Hitler’s support of Mussolini’s failing invasion of Greece. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-consequences-of-slight-alterations-in-the-course-of-ww2/548364/76 "2010-08-06T21:40:49Z")
[QUOTE=jinty] Bullshit. The Armee de l’Air bought Havocs and Warhawks before the fall of France in 1940, the 2e DB and the rest of the French 1st Army were happy to use Shermans, etc in the 1944-5 campaign. But let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good sneer, eh? [/QUOTE] Um…they bought that stuff from us because they had already been conquered by the Germans and recently liberated. Can you show me large purchases the French made of US equipment in the 30’s, because I’m unaware of any (and a careful reading of my post will show the eagle eyed that I was talking about the pre-war time period, not after the conquest of France by the Germans). But if you have the facts, certainly I won’t let them get in the way of a good sneer… -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-consequences-of-slight-alterations-in-the-course-of-ww2/548364/77 "2010-08-06T21:47:05Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] On a more interesting note, rearming early wasn’t necessarily advantageous, as Lumpy said. Italy did exactly this, and ended up with some seriously shitty tanks that hampered their armoured divisions all through the desert war. The Christie suspension was great, but you would have been very likely to have ended up with thousands of M2s rather than M24s or M26s. [/QUOTE] Thousands of anything would have been better than our troops training with trucks with ‘tank’ painted on the side, or wooden machine guns. And actually having tanks in development and used for training, coupled with the writings of various visionaries in tank warfare may have spurred the same kind of development that the Germans and Russians went through in the formation of their armored units. After all, it was the basic seed that the Russian’s used to develop what was the finest tank in the war. I concede that it might not have, too, but I don’t know how we could have been more badly prepared for war than we actually were. Even if we had shitty equipment, we would have at least had a body of trained troops (presumably to drive all those M2’s), which would have put us ahead of the game IMHO. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-consequences-of-slight-alterations-in-the-course-of-ww2/548364/78 "2010-08-06T22:16:31Z")
The Americans fielded good torpedo fuses from the get-go. As a result, Japanese naval power fades more rapidly than IOTL. Perhaps the submarine would have become the capital ship of the navy twenty years sooner. ---
**Author:** ![jinty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dbc845/32.png) [@jinty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jinty)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2010, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-consequences-of-slight-alterations-in-the-course-of-ww2/548364/79 "2010-08-06T23:49:57Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Um…they bought that stuff from us because they had already been conquered by the Germans and recently liberated. Um… again, no they didn’t. (See below) [QUOTE=xtisme] Can you show me large purchases the French made of US equipment in the 30’s, because I’m unaware of any (and a careful reading of my post will show the eagle eyed that I was talking about the pre-war time period, not after the conquest of France by the Germans). [/QUOTE] I put links in my post, so you could, y’know, read them? Well here it is, spelled out, with some pre-war dates highlighted and everything. From the first [link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-20_Havoc) I gave: [QUOTE=Wikipedia] The French discreetly participated in the flight trials, so as not to attract criticism from U.S. isolationists, but the secret was blown when the 7B crashed on **23 January 1939** , while demonstrating single-engine performance. The French were still impressed enough to order 100 production aircraft, with the order increased to 270 when the war began. [/QUOTE] And from the [second](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-36_Hawk) (I’ve corrected the link, should’ve been the P36 Hawk not the P40 Warhawk, sorry): [QUOTE=Wikipedia again] Even before the P-36A entered production, the French Air Force entered negotiations with Curtiss for delivery of 300 aircraft… The first Hawk 75A-1 arrived in France in December 1938 and began entering service in **March 1939**. [/QUOTE] And if you want an alternative source, [this site](http://france1940.free.fr/adla/ada_may.html) has a detailed OOB for the Armee de l’Air on 10 May 1940: all the references to Curtiss H-75 and Douglas DB-7 are French squadrons equipped by the time Fall Gelb began. IIRC the DB-7s had a hell of a campaign, travelling from North Africa to eastern France to take part in the battle before travelling back to NA to escape capture. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2010, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-consequences-of-slight-alterations-in-the-course-of-ww2/548364/80 "2010-08-07T02:42:36Z")
Ok…I stand corrected. I only skimmed your links admittedly, and it looked like they were talking about a later period. Myself, I was talking about much earlier than '39 (which was after the war started), but I admit I didn’t know that even after the war started and the French knew they needed equipment that they had bought some of it from us. Since my crack about the French obviously touched a nerve, I’ll simply admit I was wrong and retract it. That said, I still think my overall point was valid…that if America had decided to invest more in it’s military (non-Navy) prior to the war it would have paid off in more preparedness once hostilities started, and might have enabled us to supply the allies with better equipment in the early stages, when it might have made a significant difference. Certainly it would have helped us once war started by having a more prepared force to send into battle…one that might not have taken so much of our soldiers blood to learn how to fight. -XT [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-consequences-of-slight-alterations-in-the-course-of-ww2/548364.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-consequences-of-slight-alterations-in-the-course-of-ww2/548364.md?page=5)